4.6 Review

Simulation-based training and learning curves in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 99, Issue 7, Pages 887-895

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.8748

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. National Institute for Health Research, UK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Ex vivo simulation-based technical skills training has been shown to improve operating room performance and shorten learning curves for basic laparoscopic procedures. The application of such training for laparoscopic Roux-en-$\font\ss=cmss10 scaled 1000 \hbox{Y}$ gastric bypass (LRYGBP) has not been reviewed. Methods: Relevant studies were identified by one author from a search of MEDLINE and Embase databases from 1 January 1994 to 30 November 2010. Studies examining the learning curves and ex vivo training methods for LRYGBP were included; all other types of bariatric operations were excluded. A manual search of the references was also performed to identify additional potentially relevant papers. Results: Twelve studies (5 prospective and 7 retrospective case series) were selected for review. The learning curve for LRYGBP was reported to be 50100 procedures. Bench-top laparoscopic jejunojejunostomy, anaesthetized animals and Thiel human cadavers made up the bulk of the reported models for ex vivo training. Most studies were of relatively poor quality. An evidence-based ex vivo training curriculum for LRYGBP is currently lacking. Conclusion: Better quality studies are needed to define the learning curve for LRYGBP. Future studies should focus on the design and validation of training models, and a comprehensive curriculum for training and assessment of cognitive, technical and non-technical components of competency for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Copyright (C) 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available