PubMed · 10188496
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M A Lewis. NVQs for managers.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10188496/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to develop, test, and validate the efficacy of inexpensive mechanical minimally invasive surgery (MIS) model simulations for training faculty, residents, and medical students. We sought to demonstrate that trained and experienced MIS surgeon raters could reliably rate the MIS skills acquired during these simulations. METHODS: We developed three renewable models that represent difficult or challenging segments of laparoscopic procedures; laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), and laparoscopic inguinal hernia (LH). We videotaped 10 students, 12 surgical residents, and 1 surgeon receiving training on each of the models and again during their posttraining evaluation session. Five MIS surgeons then assessed the evaluation session performance. For each simulation, we asked them to rate overall competence (COM) and four skills: clinical judgment (respect for tissue) (CJ), dexterity (economy of movement) (DEX), serial/simultaneous complexity (SSC), and spatial orientation (SO). We computed intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficients to determine the extent of agreement (i.e., reliability) among ratings. RESULTS: We obtained ICC values of 0.74, 0.84, and 0.81 for COM ratings on LH, LC, and LA, respectively. We also obtained the following ICC values for the same three models: CJ, 0.75, 0.83, and 0.89; DEX, 0.88, 0.86, and 0.89; SSC, 0.82, 0.82, and 0.82; and SO, 0.86, 0.86, and 0.87, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We obtained very high reliability of performance ratings for competence and surgical skills using a mechanical simulator. Typically, faculty evaluations of residents in the operating room are much less reliable. In contrast, when faculty members observe residents in a controlled, standardized environment, their ratings can be very reliable.
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to compare the performance of laparoscopic tasks by surgeons using standard laparoscopic instruments and two surgical robotic systems. METHODS: Eighteen surgeons performed tasks in a training box using three different instrument systems: standard laparoscopic instruments, the Zeus Robotic Surgical System, and the da Vinci Surgical System. Basic tasks included running a 100-cm rope, placing beads onto pins, and dropping cotton peanuts into cylinders; fine tasks included intracorporeal knot tying and running stitches with 4-0, 6-0, and 7-0 sutures. Time (in seconds) required and precision (number of errors) in performing each task were recorded. Analysis of variance with pair-wise comparisons using the Bonferroni method and Friedman's nonparametric test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Standard instruments performed significantly faster than either robotic system on the rope and bead tasks (p <0.05), whereas da Vinci performed significantly faster than Zeus in all three basic tasks (p <0.05). No significant difference in precision was found between standard instruments and the robotic systems on any of the basic tasks. Knot-tying and running-suture time were similar between standard instruments and da Vinci, which were significantly faster than Zeus (p <0.05) for all suture sizes. The robotic systems were similar in precision for fine suturing tasks and were significantly more precise in knot tying (Zeus and da Vinci) and running sutures (da Vinci) than standard instruments (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Basic laparoscopic task performance is generally faster and as precise using standard instruments compared to either robotic system. In performing fine tasks, neither robotic system is faster than standard instruments, although they may offer some advantage in precision.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.