State of the evidence on simulation-based training for laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 257, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 586-593

  Zendejas, Benjamin ^a   Brydges, Ryan ^b,c   Hamstra, Stanley J ^d   Cook, David A ^a,e  

^a Mayo Clinic   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^e MAYO CLINIC COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

instructional design; laparoscopy; medical education; simulation; surgery

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EDUCATION PROGRAM; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MEDICAL STUDENT; PHYSICIAN; POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SKILL; SURGEON; SURGICAL TRAINING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VIRTUAL REALITY;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; TEACHING MATERIALS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84875231007     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318288c40b     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. Harrington DT, Roye GD, Ryder BA, et al. A time-cost analysis of teaching a laparoscopic entero-enterostomy. J Surg Educ. 2007;64:342-345.
2. Bridges M, Diamond DL. The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. Am J Surg. 1999;177:28-32.
3. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2000.
4. Ballantyne GH. The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002;12:1-5.
5. Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in healthcare. Simulation Healthc: J Soc Simulation Healthc. 2007;2:126-135.
6. Fletcher DR, Hobbs MS, Tan P, et al. Complications of cholecystectomy: risks of the laparoscopic approach and protective effects of operative cholangiography: a population-based study. Ann Surg. 1999;229:449-457.
7. Rogers DA, Elstein AS, Bordage G. Improving continuing medical education for surgical techniques: applying the lessons learned in the first decade of minimal access surgery. Ann Surg. 2001;233:159-166.
8. The American Board of Surgery. ABS to require ACLS, ATLS and FLS for general surgery certification. Published August 15, 2008. Available at: http://www.absurgery.org/default.jsp?newsnewreqs. Accessed July 23, 2012.
9. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;306:978-988.
10. McGaghieWC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, et al.Does simulation-basedmedical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011;86:706-711.
11. Cook DA, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation vs other instructional methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Simul Healthc. 2012;7:308-320.
12. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, et al. Features and uses of highfidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27:10-28.
13. McGaghieWC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, et al.Acritical reviewof simulationbased medical education research: 2003-2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50-63.
14. Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach. 2013;35:e844-e875.
15. SturmLP,Windsor JA, Cosman PH, et al.Asystematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Ann Surg. 2008;248:166-179.
16. Sutherland LM, Middleton PF, Anthony A, et al. Surgical simulation: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2006;243:291-300.
17. Gurusamy K, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, et al. Systematic reviewof randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of virtual reality training for laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 2008;95:1088-1097.
18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264-269, W64.
19. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations - uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420-428.
20. Kirkpatrick D. Great ideas revisited. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Revisiting Kirkpatrick's four-level model. Train Dev. 1996;50:54-59.
21. Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, et al. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. 2007;298:1002-1009.
22. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, et al. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:1181-1196.
23. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in metaanalyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-560.
24. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
25. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-634.
26. Munz Y, Kumar BD, Moorthy K, et al. Laparoscopic virtual reality and box trainers-Is one superior to the other? Surg Endosc. 2004;18:485-494.
27. Ganai S, Donroe JA, St Louis MR, et al. Virtual-reality training improves angled telescope skills in novice laparoscopists. Am J Surg. 2007;193:260-265.
28. Porte MC, Xeroulis G, Reznick RK, et al. Verbal feedback from an expert is more effective than self-accessed feedback about motion efficiency in learning new surgical skills. Am J Surg. 2007;193:105-110.
29. Verdaasdonk EG, Dankelman J, Lange JF, et al. Transfer validity of laparoscopic knot-tying training on a VR simulator to a realistic environment: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1636-1642.
30. Tanoue K, Yasunaga T, Konishi K, et al. Effectiveness of training for endoscopic surgery using a simulator with virtual reality: randomized study. Int Congr Ser. 2005;1281:515-520.
31. Kimura T, Kawabe A, Suzuki K, et al. Usefulness of a virtual reality simulator or training box for endoscopic surgery training. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:656-659.
32. Heinrich M, Tillo N, Kirlum HJ, et al. Comparison of different training models for laparoscopic surgery in neonates and small infants. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:641-644.
33. Kirlum HJ, Heinrich M, Tillo N, et al. Advanced paediatric laparoscopic surgery: repetitive training in a rabbit model provides superior skills for live operations. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2005;15:149-152.
34. LeBlanc F, Champagne BJ, Augestad KM, et al. A comparison of human cadaver and augmented reality simulator models for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:250-255.
35. Leblanc F, Senagore AJ, Ellis CN, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition: augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models. J Surg Educ. 2010;67:200-204.
36. Katz R, Hoznek A, Antiphon P, et al. Cadaveric versus porcine models in urological laparoscopic training. Urol Int. 2003;71:310-315.
37. Helmy S, El-Shenoufy A. Development of laparoscopic skills using a new inexpensive webcam trainer. J Biol Sci. 2009;9:766-771.
38. Keyser EJ, Derossis AM, Antoniuk M, et al. A simplified simulator for the training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:149-153.
39. Bruynzeel H, de BruinAF, Bonjer HJ, et al. Desktop simulator: key to universal training? Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1637-1640.
40. Morandeira Rivas A, Cabrera Vilanova A, Sabench Pereferrer F, et al. [Low cost simulator for acquiring basic laparoscopic skills]. Cir Esp. 2010;87:26-32.
41. Chandrasekera SK, Donohue JF, Orley D, et al. Basic laparoscopic surgical training: examination of a low-cost alternative. Eur Urol. 2006;50:1285-1290; 1290-1291.
42. Lauscher JC, Ritz JP, Stroux A, et al. A new surgical trainer (BOPT) improves skill transfer for anastomotic techniques in gastrointestinal surgery into the operating room: a prospective randomized trial. World J Surg. 2010;34:2017-2025.
43. Mazilu D, Patriciu A, Gruionu L, et al. Synthetic torso for training in and evaluation of urologic laparoscopic skills. J Endourol. 2006;20:340-345.
44. Jiang C, Lin TX, Zhang CX, et al. A training model for laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. J Endourol. 2008;22:1541-1545.
45. Panait L, Akkary E, Bell RL, et al. The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J Surg Res. 2009;156:312-316.
46. Kanumuri P, Ganai S, Wohaibi EM, et al. Virtual reality and computerenhanced training devices equally improve laparoscopic surgical skill in novices. JSLS. 2008;12:219-226.
47. Botden SM, Torab F, Buzink SN, et al. The importance of haptic feedback in laparoscopic suturing training and the additive value of virtual reality simulation. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1214-1222.
48. ChmarraMK, Dankelman J, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, et al. Force feedback and basic laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc. 2008; 22:2140-2148.
49. Schlosser K, Alkhawaga M, Maschuw K, et al. Training of laparoscopic skills with virtual reality simulator: a critical reappraisal of the learning curve. Eur Surg-Acta Chir Aust. 2007;39:180-184.
50. Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Moorthy K, et al. A competency-based virtual reality training curriculum for the acquisition of laparoscopic psychomotor skill. Am J Surg. 2006;191:128-133.
51. Dubrowski A, Park J,Moulton CA, et al. A comparison of single- andmultiplestage approaches to teaching laparoscopic suturing. Am J Surg. 2007;193:269-273.
52. Uchal M, Raftopoulos Y, Tjugum J, et al. Validation of a six-task simulation model in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:109-116.
53. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Markley S, et al. Closing the gap in operative performance between novices and experts: does harder mean better for laparoscopic simulator training? J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205:307-313.
54. Szafranski C, Kahol K, Ghaemmaghami V, et al. Distractions and surgical proficiency: an educational perspective. Am J Surg. 2009;198:804-810.
55. Pluyter JR, Buzink SN, Rutkowski AF, et al. Do absorption and realistic distraction influence performance of component task surgical procedure? Surg Endosc. 2010;24:902-907.
56. Vankipuram M, Kahol K, Ashby A, et al. Virtual reality based training to resolve visio-motor conflicts in surgical environments. In: IEEE International Workshop on Haptic Audio visual Environments and Games,HAVE 2008; 2008: 7-12.
57. Dunnican WJ, Singh TP, Ata A, et al. Reverse alignment "mirror image" visualization as a laparoscopic training tool improves task performance. Surg Innov. 2010;17:108-113.
58. Martinez AM, Aguilar JLL, Flores RO, et al. Adaptation to a dynamic visual perspective in laparoscopy through training in the cutting task. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1341-1346.
59. Immenroth M, Burger T, Brenner J, et al. Mental training in surgical education - a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2007;245:385-391.
60. Kahol K, Vankipuram M, Smith ML. Cognitive simulators for medical education and training. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:593-604.
61. Arora S, Aggarwal R, Sirimanna P, et al. Mental practice enhances surgical technical skills: a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2011;253:265-270.
62. Donnon T, DesCoteaux JG, Violato C. Impact of cognitive imaging and sex differences on the development of laparoscopic suturing skills. Can J Surg. 2005;48:387-393.
63. Bingener J, Boyd T, Van Sickle K, et al. Randomized double-blinded trial investigating the impact of a curriculum focused on error recognition on laparoscopic suturing training. Am J Surg. 2008;195:179-182.
64. Rodriguez Garcia JI, Turienzo Santos E, Gonzalez Gonzalez JJ. Does the incorporation of a virtual simulator improve abilities in endoscopic surgery acquired with an inanimate simulator? Cir Esp. 2009;86:167-170.
65. Harold KL, Matthews BD, Backus CL, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of surgical resident proficiency with laparoscopic suturing after course instruction. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1729-1731.
66. Lentz GM, Mandel LS, Goff BA. A six-year study of surgical teaching and skills evaluation for obstetric/gynecologic residents in porcine and inanimate surgical models. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:2056-2061.
67. Molinas CR, Campo R. Defining a structured training program for acquiring basic and advanced laparoscopic psychomotor skills in a simulator. Gynecol Surg. 2010;7:427-435.
68. Stefanidis D,Korndorffer JR,Markley S, et al. Proficiency maintenance: impact of ongoing simulator training on laparoscopic skill retention. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202:599-603.
69. Rosenthal ME, Castellvi AO, Goova MT, et al. Pretraining on Southwestern stations decreases training time and cost for proficiency-based fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery training. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:626-631.
70. Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Korndorffer JR, et al. Initial laparoscopic basic skills training shortens the learning curve of laparoscopic suturing and is costeffective. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:436-440.
71. O'Connor A, Schwaitzberg SD, Cao CG. How much feedback is necessary for learning to suture? Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1614-1619.
72. Shiliang C, Waid E, Martinec DV, et al. Verbal communication improves laparoscopic team performance. Surg Innov. 2008;15:143-147.
73. Kahol K, French J, McDaniel T, et al. Augmented virtual reality for laparoscopic surgical tool training. In: Jacko J, ed. Human-Computer Interaction. Vol. 4553. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2007:459-467.
74. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Heniford BT, et al. Limited feedback and video tutorials optimize learning and resource utilization during laparoscopic simulator training. Surgery. 2007;142:202-206.
75. Van Sickle KR, Gallagher AG, Smith CD. The effect of escalating feedback on the acquisition of psychomotor skills for laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:220-224.
76. Rosser JC Jr, Colsant BJ, Lynch PJ, et al. The use of a "hybrid" trainer in an established laparoscopic skills program. JSLS. 2006;10:4-10.
77. Jayaraman S, Apriasz I, Trejos AL, et al. Novel hands-free pointer improves instruction efficiency in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov. 2009;16: 73-77.
78. Snyder CW, Vandromme MJ, Tyra SL, et al. Proficiency-based laparoscopic and endoscopic training with virtual reality simulators: a comparison of proctored and independent approaches. J Surg Educ. 2009;66:201-207.
79. Uccelli J, Kahol K, Ashby A, et al. The validity of take-home surgical simulators to enhance resident technical skill proficiency. Am J Surg. 2011;201:315-319; discussion 319.
80. Risucci D, Cohen JA, Garbus JE, et al. The effects of practice and instruction on speed and accuracy during resident acquisition of simulated laparoscopic skills. Curr Surg. 2001;58:230-235.
81. Okrainec A, Henao O, Azzie G. Telesimulation: an effective method for teaching the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery in resource-restricted countries. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:417-422.
82. Panait L, Rafiq A, Tomulescu V, et al. Telementoring versus on-site mentoring in virtual reality-based surgical training. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:113-118.
83. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S. Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2011;45:227-238.
84. Andreatta PB, Woodrum DT, Gauger PG, et al. LapMentor metrics possess limited construct validity. Simul Healthc. 2008;3:16-25.
85. CookDA.Avoiding confounded comparisons in education research. Med Educ. 2009;43:102-104.
86. Cook DA. The research we still are not doing: an agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Acad Med. 2005;80:541-548.
87. Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:128-133.
88. ZendejasB,WangA,BrydgesR, et al. Cost: the missing outcome in simulationbased education research. A systematic review. Surgery. 2013;153:160-176.
89. Schmidt RA, Wulf G. Continuous concurrent feedback degrades skill learning: Implications for training and simulation. Hum Factors. 1997;39: 509-525.
90. Xeroulis GJ, Park J,Moulton CA, et al. Teaching suturing and knot-tying skills to medical students: a randomized controlled study comparing computer-based video instruction and (concurrent and summary) expert feedback. Surgery. 2007;141:442-449.
91. Walsh CM, Ling SC, Wang CS, et al. Concurrent versus terminal feedback: it may be better to wait. Acad Med. 2009;84:S54-S57.
92. Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, van Wijk RP, et al. The influence of different training schedules on the learning of psychomotor skills for endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:214-219.
93. Gauger PG, Hauge LS, Andreatta PB, et al. Laparoscopic simulation training with proficiency targets improves practice and performance of novice surgeons. Am J Surg. 2010;199:72-80.