File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Trainee-Directed Virtual Reality Simulation Training and Box Trainer on the Acquisition of Laparoscopic Suturing Skills

TitleA Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Trainee-Directed Virtual Reality Simulation Training and Box Trainer on the Acquisition of Laparoscopic Suturing Skills
Authors
Keywordsbox trainer
Education
laparoscopy
simulator training
suturing
Issue Date2018
Citation
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 2018, v. 40, n. 3, p. 310-316 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: To compare the proficiency of novices in acquiring laparoscopic suturing skills following training in a virtual reality simulator or box trainer compared to no training. Methods: This was a RCT in a university-affiliated teaching hospital recruiting participants who had no laparoscopic suturing experience to have suturing skill training in the virtual reality simulator, box trainer, or no training as control. Trainees were allowed to terminate training when they perceived competence in the procedure. Suturing skills were tested in the box trainer and scored using a modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills questionnaire by their own self-evaluation and two experienced gynaecological laparoscopists. Results: Of the 36 participants recruited, 27 (75%) had no laparoscopic experience. Participants with no laparoscopic experience took longer to complete training than those with experience (median 90 minutes [interquartile range (IQR) 80–115] vs. 55 min [IQR 40–65], respectively; P = 0.044). There were no differences in successful completion of the task (7/12 [58.3%], 10/12 [83.3%], 7/12 [58.3%]; P = 0.325), median suturing time in seconds (628 [IQR 460–835], 611 [IQR 434–691], 609 [IQR 540–837]; P = 0.702), mean subjective (mean ± SD 9.8 ± 1.8, 10.4 ± 2.8, 9.3 ± 2.4; P = 0.710), and objective (7.2 ± 1.8, 8.2 ± 2.1, 7.6 ± 1.7; P = 0.426) modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills score in the simulator, pelvic trainer, and control groups, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the two reviewers was 0.422 (95% CI 0.159–0.717). Conclusion: Trainees were unable to accurately assess themselves as to skill level in laparoscopic suturing. A longer training time is required for novices to master laparoscopic suturing using a simulator or box trainer.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/352955
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 2.0
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.611
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKo, Jennifer K.Y.-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, Vincent Y.T.-
dc.contributor.authorPun, Ting Chung-
dc.contributor.authorTung, Wai Kit-
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-13T03:01:16Z-
dc.date.available2025-01-13T03:01:16Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 2018, v. 40, n. 3, p. 310-316-
dc.identifier.issn1701-2163-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/352955-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the proficiency of novices in acquiring laparoscopic suturing skills following training in a virtual reality simulator or box trainer compared to no training. Methods: This was a RCT in a university-affiliated teaching hospital recruiting participants who had no laparoscopic suturing experience to have suturing skill training in the virtual reality simulator, box trainer, or no training as control. Trainees were allowed to terminate training when they perceived competence in the procedure. Suturing skills were tested in the box trainer and scored using a modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills questionnaire by their own self-evaluation and two experienced gynaecological laparoscopists. Results: Of the 36 participants recruited, 27 (75%) had no laparoscopic experience. Participants with no laparoscopic experience took longer to complete training than those with experience (median 90 minutes [interquartile range (IQR) 80–115] vs. 55 min [IQR 40–65], respectively; P = 0.044). There were no differences in successful completion of the task (7/12 [58.3%], 10/12 [83.3%], 7/12 [58.3%]; P = 0.325), median suturing time in seconds (628 [IQR 460–835], 611 [IQR 434–691], 609 [IQR 540–837]; P = 0.702), mean subjective (mean ± SD 9.8 ± 1.8, 10.4 ± 2.8, 9.3 ± 2.4; P = 0.710), and objective (7.2 ± 1.8, 8.2 ± 2.1, 7.6 ± 1.7; P = 0.426) modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills score in the simulator, pelvic trainer, and control groups, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the two reviewers was 0.422 (95% CI 0.159–0.717). Conclusion: Trainees were unable to accurately assess themselves as to skill level in laparoscopic suturing. A longer training time is required for novices to master laparoscopic suturing using a simulator or box trainer.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada-
dc.subjectbox trainer-
dc.subjectEducation-
dc.subjectlaparoscopy-
dc.subjectsimulator training-
dc.subjectsuturing-
dc.titleA Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Trainee-Directed Virtual Reality Simulation Training and Box Trainer on the Acquisition of Laparoscopic Suturing Skills-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jogc.2017.07.010-
dc.identifier.pmid28964657-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85030169856-
dc.identifier.volume40-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage310-
dc.identifier.epage316-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000429088900015-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats