Instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized educational trial

Jeanett Oestergaard, Flemming Bjerrum, Mathilde Maagaard, Per Winkel, Christian Rifbjerg Larsen, Charlotte Ringsted, Christian Gluud, Teodor Grantcharov, Bent Ottesen, Jette Led Soerensen, Jeanett Oestergaard, Flemming Bjerrum, Mathilde Maagaard, Per Winkel, Christian Rifbjerg Larsen, Charlotte Ringsted, Christian Gluud, Teodor Grantcharov, Bent Ottesen, Jette Led Soerensen

Abstract

Background: Several studies have found a positive effect on the learning curve as well as the improvement of basic psychomotor skills in the operating room after virtual reality training. Despite this, the majority of surgical and gynecological departments encounter hurdles when implementing this form of training. This is mainly due to lack of knowledge concerning the time and human resources needed to train novice surgeons to an adequate level. The purpose of this trial is to investigate the impact of instructor feedback regarding time, repetitions and self-perception when training complex operational tasks on a virtual reality simulator.

Methods/design: The study population consists of medical students on their 4th to 6th year without prior laparoscopic experience. The study is conducted in a skills laboratory at a centralized university hospital. Based on a sample size estimation 98 participants will be randomized to an intervention group or a control group. Both groups have to achieve a predefined proficiency level when conducting a laparoscopic salpingectomy using a surgical virtual reality simulator. The intervention group receives standardized instructor feedback of 10 to 12 min a maximum of three times. The control group receives no instructor feedback. Both groups receive the automated feedback generated by the virtual reality simulator. The study follows the CONSORT Statement for randomized trials. Main outcome measures are time and repetitions to reach the predefined proficiency level on the simulator. We include focus on potential sex differences, computer gaming experience and self-perception.

Discussion: The findings will contribute to a better understanding of optimal training methods in surgical education.

Trial registration: NCT01497782.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Enrollment of participants according to the COSORT Statement.

References

    1. Aggarwal R, Ward J, Balasundaram I, Sains P, Athanasiou T, Darzi A. Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2007;246:771–779. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180f61b09.
    1. Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, Hedman L, Hogman C, McClusky DA III. et al.Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am J Surg. 2007;193:797–804. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.06.050.
    1. Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P. Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg. 2004;91:146–150.
    1. Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP, Dalsgaard T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C. et al.Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;338:b1802. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1802.
    1. Burden C, Oestergaard J, Larsen CR. Integration of laparoscopic virtual-reality simulation into gynaecology training. BJOG. 2011;118(Suppl 3):5–10.
    1. Schout BM, Hendrikx AJ, Scheele F, Bemelmans BL, Scherpbier AJ. Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:536–546. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0634-9.
    1. Stefanidis D, Heniford BT. The formula for a successful laparoscopic skills curriculum. Arch Surg. 2009;144:77–82. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2008.528.
    1. Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Moorthy K, Hance J, Darzi A. A competency-based virtual reality training curriculum for the acquisition of laparoscopic psychomotor skill. Am J Surg. 2006;191:128–133. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.10.014.
    1. Brunner WC, Korndorffer JR Jr, Sierra R, Massarweh NN, Dunne JB, Yau CL. et al.Laparoscopic virtual reality training: are 30 repetitions enough? J Surg Res. 2004;122:150–156. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2004.08.006.
    1. Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H, Higgins G, Fried MP, Moses G. et al.Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg. 2005;241:364–372. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000151982.85062.80.
    1. Snyder CW, Vandromme MJ, Tyra SL, Hawn MT. Proficiency-based laparoscopic and endoscopic training with virtual reality simulators: a comparison of proctored and independent approaches. J Surg Educ. 2009;66:201–207. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2009.07.007.
    1. Wulf G, Raupach M, Pfeiffer F. Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2005;76:107–111.
    1. Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R. Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Med Educ. 2010;44:75–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03421.x.
    1. Brydges R, Carnahan H, Safir O, Dubrowski A. How effective is self-guided learning of clinical technical skills? It's all about process. Med Educ. 2009;43:507–515. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03329.x.
    1. Larsen CR, Grantcharov T, Aggarwal R, Tully A, Sorensen JL, Dalsgaard T. et al.Objective assessment of gynecologic laparoscopic skills using the LapSimGyn virtual reality simulator. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1460–1466. doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0745-x.
    1. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statist. 1979;6:65–70.
    1. Halvorsen FH, Fosse E, Mjaland O. Unsupervised virtual reality training may not increase laparoscopic suturing skills. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011;21:458–461. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31823bdf0c.
    1. Cass GK, Crofts JF, Draycott TJ. The use of simulation to teach clinical skills in obstetrics. Semin Perinatol. 2011;35:68–73. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2011.01.005.
    1. Zigmont JJ, Kappus LJ, Sudikoff SN. Theoretical foundations of learning through simulation. Semin Perinatol. 2011;35:47–51. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2011.01.002.
    1. Bong CL, Lightdale JR, Fredette ME, Weinstock P. Effects of simulation versus traditional tutorial-based training on physiologic stress levels among clinicians: a pilot study. Simul Healthc. 2010;5:272–278. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181e98b29.
    1. Harvey A, Nathens AB, Bandiera G, Leblanc VR. Threat and challenge: cognitive appraisal and stress responses in simulated trauma resuscitations. Med Educ. 2010;44:587–594. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03634.x.
    1. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x.
    1. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner's performance. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2005;76:42–48.
    1. Elneel FH, Carter F, Tang B, Cuschieri A. Extent of innate dexterity and ambidexterity across handedness and gender: implications for training in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:31–37. doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9533-0.
    1. Grantcharov TP, Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Rosenberg J. Impact of hand dominance, gender, and experience with computer games on performance in virtual reality laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1082–1085. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-9176-0.
    1. Thorson CM, Kelly JP, Forse RA, Turaga KK. Can we continue to ignore gender differences in performance on simulation trainers? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011;21:329–333. doi: 10.1089/lap.2010.0368.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera