Evaluation of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Simulator

February 20, 2019 updated by: Unity Health Toronto

Evaluation of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Simulator to Improve Cognitive Surgical Knowledge of Obstetrics and Gynecology Trainees

This study aims to test the validity of a new educational tool in the form of a computer based video surgical simulator, that may be used to enhance the current teaching method of how to perform a hysterectomy.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Ensuring the surgical competence of trainees is mandatory for all surgical residency programs, yet most evaluations of graduating residents are based on observation and subjective feedback. We have developed a computer based video surgical simulator to facilitate cognitive knowledge of the step-by-step process needed to perform a laparoscopic hysterectomy, learn essential pelvic anatomy and avoid surgical complications. Studies have shown that when trainees already have the cognitive knowledge of how to perform a procedure, they can focus more on learning surgical technique and how to minimize surgical complications. Laparoscopy is becoming the standard of surgical care for gynecologic patients. The benefits of minimally invasive surgery include reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, less scarring, quicker return to normal activities, preservation of immune response, and fewer long-term problems such as adhesions or incisional hernia. The current challenge in surgical education is how to produce competent surgeons who are skilled to perform and integrate the multiple advances in surgical technology. Surgical competency involves proficiency in technical skills, decision-making (preoperative, operative, and postoperative), and team performance all of which require knowledge and communication skills. The increasing complexity of surgery and the requirements for mastery at laparotomy, laparoscopy, and endoscopy reduces the feasibility of the traditional "see one, do one, teach one" model of surgical education. Lack of training is considered a major barrier to performing laparoscopic surgery. Alternative training modalities are required to acquire the necessary surgical skills for laparoscopy. Although there is a transfer of skills and knowledge to the trainee by the time of graduation, current training programs have not been designed in a validated, effective, and competency-based manner. A successful laparoscopic curriculum should incorporate a cognitive component in addition to the manual skills component. Although the benefit of simulators as a method of surgical education has been validated, comprehensive curriculum development is lacking. Most recently, Zevin et al. (2012) conducted a Delphi consensus involving international experts in surgical education on the principles for design, validation and implementation of a simulation-based surgical training curriculum. The main components of the final framework included predevelopment analysis; cognitive, psychomotor, and team-based training; curriculum validation, evaluation, and improvement; and maintenance of training. They have produced a framework that is based on the broad principles of educational theory that can be applied to any surgical specialty. Several authors have emphasized the importance of cognitive teaching in a comprehensive surgical skills training curriculum. Learning begins with the acquisition of procedure-specific knowledge. Categories include pre-procedure assessment and preparation; anatomic knowledge; safety and limitations of specific instruments; ergonomics; and post-procedure management. A cognitive curriculum can include reading materials in the form of text books or journal articles as well as procedural video tutorials. The cognitive component should be studied by the trainee before technical skills training and should be followed by satisfactory performance on a paper-based test of knowledge or a mock operative note dictation. Teaching about errors commonly associated with the procedure should be included so that trainees can anticipate or avoid them in the future, and recognize and manage them if they occur. The purpose of this research study is to test the validity of a new educational tool as an enhancement to the current teaching method of how to perform a hysterectomy. Should our data substantiate our hypothesis, that cognitive function of surgical trainees will be enhanced by use of the trainer, then the tool will be able to be utilized as a new, advanced, creative tool for teaching how to perform a hysterectomy. This tool might then be able to be utilized to advance the teaching of many other surgical procedures to residents in many different surgical programs.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
45

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Canada
    • British Columbia
      • Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 1M9
        • University of British Columbia, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology
    • Ontario
      • Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A8
        • University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine
  • Netherlands
    • Heidelberglaan
      • Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Netherlands, 3508 GA
        • University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • United States
    • California
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 90033
        • University of Southern California, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 90095
        • University of California Los Angeles, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
    • Washington
      • Seattle, Washington, United States, 98195
        • University of Washington, School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Faculty in the Department of Ob-Gyn
  • Experienced OBGYN surgeons
  • Residents in the Department of Ob-Gyn

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Supportive Care
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
No Intervention: conventional residency training
no intervention
Experimental: Laparoscopic Hysterectomy trainer
Intervention: An educational video and web-based e-module will be created. The final product will be reviewed by the expert contributors. Once approved, these tools will be showcased to a voluntary focus group of Obstetrics and Gynecology residents at the University of Toronto. A quantitative assessment of effectiveness of this tool will be performed through the use of pre- and post-tests of knowledge. A qualitative needs assessment will also be performed using post-viewing surveys. If found to be effective, this educational tool will be incorporated in the University of Toronto Obstetrics and Gynecology residency curriculum.
Procedure: Laparoscopic Hysterectomy trainer
In order to increase comfort level amongst Gynecologists, we aim to identify verbal and non-verbal components of teaching TLH through interview and video recordings. Utilizing qualitative analysis of common themes, we will develop an educational video and web-based e-module to be used by Gynecology residents and surgeons. We will also use a combination of quantitative pre- and post-tests and qualitative surveys to assess the effectiveness of such a training tool. Ultimately, the project aims to create a robust tool that can be implemented in Gynecology residencies.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of residents using validation tool
Time Frame: 7-10 days
Phase I will consist of two on line tests that assess surgical and anatomic knowledge. The tests will be separated by 7-10 days. Evaluation will determine the validity of the tests as well as creating a "knowledge curve." Analyzing resident and faculty performance with a one-way analysis of variance, with level of training as the independent variable, will assess construct validity. Post hoc contrasts are done with Student-Newman-Keuls test. We will also evaluate the validity of the exam by comparing the performance of novice surgeons with more advanced residents and experts. Internal consistency of the examination, which is a measure of the reliability of the test, will be calculated using Cronbach's alpha test. Results will be presented as percentages, means and standard deviations based on the number of questions that are answered correctly.
7-10 days

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of experts using validation tool
Time Frame: 7-10 days
Phase I will consist of two on line tests that assess surgical and anatomic knowledge. The tests will be separated by 7-10 days. Evaluation will determine the validity of the tests as well as creating a "knowledge curve." Analyzing resident and faculty performance with a one-way analysis of variance, with level of training as the independent variable, will assess construct validity. Post hoc contrasts are done with Student-Newman-Keuls test. We will also evaluate the validity of the exam by comparing the performance of novice surgeons with more advanced residents and experts. Internal consistency of the examination, which is a measure of the reliability of the test, will be calculated using Cronbach's alpha test. Results will be presented as percentages, means and standard deviations based on the number of questions that are answered correctly.
7-10 days

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Unity Health Toronto

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
University of Toronto

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Dr. Satkunaratnam Abheha, MD, Unity Health Toronto

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
July 1, 2014

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
July 1, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
July 1, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
August 6, 2014

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 4, 2014

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
September 9, 2014

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
February 22, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
February 20, 2019

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
February 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 30509

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings