4.5 Article

Dry Lab Practice Leads to Improved Laparoscopic Performance in the Operating Room

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 154, 期 1, 页码 163-166

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.06.009

关键词

laparoscopic simulator; surgical education; surgical skills; proficiency level

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Research has demonstrated that practice in surgical simulators leads to improved performance in that simulator. Our hypothesis is that skills acquired in simulators are transferable to the operating room. Materials and methods. Twenty-three laparoscopically naive surgical interns performed two standardized tasks in a simulator: pegboard transfer and intracorporeal knot tying. Performance was measured using a validated scoring system. On the same day as this initial assessment, subjects were videotaped performing two tasks in a live porcine model: running the small bowel and intracorporeal knot tying. Performance in the porcine model was measured using a modified version of a validated skills assessment tool by two blinded experts. Following a 6-wk proficiency-based dry lab laparoscopic training course, task performance was re-evaluated. No interval live operative laparoscopic experience occurred between the first and second assessment. Results. After training, mean pegboard transfer scores increased from 118.7 to 181.8 (theoretical maximum = 300; P < 0.01). Dry lab knot tying scores increased from 294.7 to 459.0 (theoretical maximum = 600, P < 0.01). In the porcine model, scores for the bowel running task increased from 8.5 to 13.5 (maximum score = 20 for both porcine tasks, P < 0.01). Knot tying scores increased from 7.3 to 14.3 (P < 0.01). Conclusion. Practice in a simulator leads to improved performance in that simulator and in a live operative model. We believe that this is evidence that laparoscopic skills developed in a dry laboratory setting are transferable to the operating room. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据