Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation of the laparoscopic simulator in a gynecological residency curriculum

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In view of the current emphasis on increasing patient safety and quality control in laparoscopic surgery, there is a growing need to improve laparoscopic training. This study was conducted to investigate if and when residents reached performance standards for basic laparoscopic skills on a boxtrainer and to analyze the current state of implementation of laparoscopic simulators in a gynecological residency curriculum.

Methods

Residents across all 6 years of residency (postgraduate year [PGY] 1–6) were tested once on our boxtrainer by performing five inanimate tasks (pipe cleaner, rubber band, beads, cutting circle, intracorporeal knot tying). A sumscore for the five tasks was calculated for each participant (sum of all scores). Scores were calculated by adding completion time and penalty points, thus rewarding both speed and precision. These data were compared with scores of laparoscopic experts, which were set as performance standards.

Results

Of the participants, 111 were residents (7 PGY1, 27 PGY2, 29 PGY3, 28 PGY4, 14 PGY5, 6 PGY6) and 8 were experts. At the end of residency, PGY6 residents reached the performance standard for all tasks except intracorporeal knot tying. It was not until PGY5 that residents reached the performance standard for the pipe cleaner task; PGY1, for rubber band; PGY5, for beads; PGY4, for circle cutting; and PGY6, for sumscore. Throughout residency PGY6 had a mean total of only 3.6 h of simulator training experience. No correlation was found between this previous voluntary simulator training experience and performance on our boxtrainer during this study (sumscore), and between previous voluntary simulator training and total laparoscopic procedures performed. In a combined multivariate analysis, sumscore performance remained significantly associated with the number of laparoscopic procedures performed by residents when they were working as as a primary surgeon (p = 0.002), and not with the cumulative hours of simulator training during residency prior to participating in this study (p = 0.15).

Conclusions

In a current Dutch gynecological residency curriculum, residents do not reach all performance standards for basic laparoscopic skills on the boxtrainer. We conclude that the voluntary simulator training program has a substantial risk to fail and that the implementation of the laparoscopic skills simulator in the current residency curriculum is in its infancy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anastakis DJ, Regehr G, Reznick RK, Cusimano M, Murnaghan J, Brown M, Hutchison C (1999) Assessment of technical skills transfer from the bench training model to the human model. Am J Surg 177:167–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Blanchard MH, Amini SB, Frank TM (2004) Impact of work hour restrictions on resident case experience in an obstetrics and gynecology residency program. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1746–1751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brolmann HA, Vervest HA, Heineman MJ (2001) Declining trend in major gynaecological surgery in The Netherlands during 1991–1998. Is there an impact on surgical skills and innovative ability?. BJOG 108:743–748

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH, Fried GM (1998) The effect of practice on performance in a laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 12:1117–1120

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Derossis AM, Antoniuk M, Fried GM (1999) Evaluation of laparoscopic skills: a 2-year follow-up during residency training. Can J Surg 42:293–296

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Feldman LS, Sherman V, Fried GM (2004) Using simulators to assess laparoscopic competence: ready for widespread use? Surgery 135: 28–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fraser SA, Klassen DR, Feldman LS, Ghitulescu GA, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2003) Evaluating laparoscopic skills: setting the pass/fail score for the MISTELS system. Surg Endosc 17:964–967

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fried GM, Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH (1999) Comparison of laparoscopic performance in vivo with performance measured in a laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 13:1077–1081

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, Andrew CG (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grantcharov TP, Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Rosenberg J (2003) Learning curves and impact of previous operative experience on performance on a virtual reality simulator to test laparoscopic surgical skills. Am J Surg 185:146–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P (2004) Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg 91:146–150

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Haluck RS, Webster RW, Snyder AJ, Melkonian MG, Mohler BJ, Dise ML, Lefever A (2001) A virtual reality surgical trainer for navigation in laparoscopic surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 81:171–176

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamilton EC, Scott DJ, Fleming JB, Rege RV, Laycock R, Bergen PC, Tesfay ST, Jones DB (2002) Comparison of video trainer and virtual reality training systems on acquisition of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 16:406–411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hyltander A, Lilegren E, Rhodin PH, Lonroth H (2002) The transfer of basic skills learning in a laparoscopic simulator to the operating room. Surg Endosc 16:1324–1328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jordan JA, Gallagher AG, McGuigan J, McClure N (2001) Virtual reality training leads to faster adaptation to the novel psychomotor restrictions encountered by laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 15:1080–1084

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kolkman W, van de Put MAJ, Trimbos JBMZ, Jansen FW (2006) Laparoscopic skills simulator: construct validity and establishing performance standards for residency training. Surg Endosc (submitted)

  17. Kolkman W, Wolterbeek R, Jansen FW (2005) Gynecological laparoscopy in residency training program: Dutch residents’ perspectives. Surg Endosc 19:1498–1502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Korndorffer JR Jr, Scott DJ, Sierra R, Brunner WC, Dunne JB, Slakey DP, Townsend MC, Hewitt RL (2005) Developing and testing competency levels for laparoscopic skills training. Arch Surg 140:80–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lentz GM, Mandel LS, Lee D, Gardella C, Melville J, Goff BA (2001) Testing surgical skills of obstetrics and gynecologic residents in a bench laboratory setting: validity and reliability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1462–1470

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Munz Y, Kumar BD, Moorthy K, Bann S, Darzi A (2004) Laparoscopic virtual reality and boxtrainers. Is one superior to the other?. Surg Endosc 18:485–494

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Reznick R, Regehr G, MacRae H, Martin J, McCulloch W (1997) Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination. Am J Surg 173:226–230

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosser JC, Rosser LE, Savalgi RS (1997) Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopic surgery. Arch Surg 132:200–204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Schijven MP, Berlage JT, Jakimowicz JJ (2003) Minimal access surgery training in The Netherlands: a survey among residents-in-training for general surgery. Surg Endosc 18:1805–1814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schijven MP, Jakimowicz JJ, Broeders IA, Tseng LN (2005) The Eindhoven laparoscopic cholecystectomy training course-improving operating room performance using virtual reality training: results from the first E.A.E.S. accredited virtual reality trainings curriculum. Surg Endosc 19:1220–1226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Scott DJ, Bergen PC, Rege RV, Laycock R, Tesfay ST, Valentine RJ, Euhus DM, Jeyarajah DR, Thompson WM, Jones DB (2000) Laparoscopic training on bench models: better and more cost effective than operating room experience? J Am Coll Surg 191:272–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Scott DJ, Young WN, Tesfay ST, Frawley WH, Rege RV, Jones DB (2001) Laparoscopic skills training. Am J Surg 182:137–142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomised, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236:458–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Torkington J, Smith SG, Rees BI (2001) Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task. Surg Endosc 15:1076–1079

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Traxer O, Gettman MT, Napper CA, Scott DJ, Jones DB, Roehrborn CG, Pearle MS, Cadeddu JA (2001) The impact of intense laparoscopic skills training on the operative performance of urology residents. J Urol 166:1658–1661

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Vossen C, Van Ballaer P, Shaw RW, Koninckx PR (1997) Effect of training on endoscopic intracorporeal knot tying. Hum Reprod 12:2658–2663

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all residents and experts for participating in our studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center K6-76, P.O. Box 9600, 2300, RC, Leiden, The Netherlands

    W. Kolkman, M. A. J. Van de Put, J. B. M. Z. Trimbos & F. W. Jansen

  2. Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center J10-S, P.O. Box 9600, 2300, RC, Leiden, The Netherlands

    W. B. Van den Hout

Authors
  1. W. Kolkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. A. J. Van de Put
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. B. Van den Hout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. B. M. Z. Trimbos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. W. Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. W. Jansen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kolkman, W., Van de Put, M.A.J., Van den Hout, W.B. et al. Implementation of the laparoscopic simulator in a gynecological residency curriculum. Surg Endosc 21, 1363–1368 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9120-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9120-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation