4.4 Article

Comparison of learning curves and skill transfer between classical and robotic laparoscopy according to the viewing conditions:: implications for training

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 194, Issue 1, Pages 115-121

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.10.014

Keywords

robotic surgery; depth perception; movement freedom; learning curves; laparoscopy; training

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceptual (2-dimensional [2D] vs. 3-dimensional [3D] view) and instrumental (classical vs. robotic) impacts of new robotic system on learning curves. Methods: Forty medical students without any surgical experience were randomized into 4 groups (classical laparoscopy with 3D-direct view or with 2D-indirect view, robotic system in 3D or in 2D) and repeated a laparoscopic task 6 times. After these 6 repetitions, they performed 2 trials with the same technique but in the other viewing condition (perceptive switch). Finally, subjects performed the last 3 trials with the technique they never used (technical switch). Subjects evaluated their performance answering a questionnaire (impressions of mastery, familiarity, satisfaction, self-confidence, and difficulty). Results: Our study showed better performance and improvement in 3D view than in 2D view whatever the instrumental aspect. Participants reported less mastery, familiarity, and self-confidence and more difficulty in classical laparoscopy with 2D-indirect view than in the other conditions. Conclusions: Robotic Surgery improves surgical performance and learning, particularly by 3D view advantage. However, perceptive and technical switches emphasize the need to adapt and pursue training also with traditional technology to prevent risks in conversion procedure. (c) 2007 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available