Development and validation of a general and easy assessable scoring system for laparoscopic skills using a virtual reality simulator.
Assessment of surgical training
Laparoscopy
Procedural training
Simulation
Virtual reality
Journal
European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X
ISSN: 2590-1613
Titre abrégé: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101750520
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
25
11
2018
revised:
03
07
2019
accepted:
04
08
2019
entrez:
2
11
2019
pubmed:
2
11
2019
medline:
2
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To develop and validate a scoring system for laparoscopic skills for five specific tasks on a virtual reality simulator. A longitudinal, experimental, non-randomised study including 30 gynecologists and gynecological trainees at three hospitals. The participants were categorized as inexperienced (Group 1), moderately experienced (Group 2), and experienced (Group 3).The study participants performed ten repetitions of three basic skill tasks, a salpingectomy and a laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy on a virtual reality simulator. Assessment of skills was based on time, error parameters and economy of movements measured by the simulator. We used the results (mean and SD for each parameter in all tasks) of the four last repetitions performed by the experienced gynecologists as the basic for the scoring system. Performance equal to, and higher than, this mean score gave 2 points. A decrease of 1 SD from the mean gave 1 point. Every score below gave 0 points. The mean score for the inexperienced, moderately experienced and experienced study participants was compared. The mean scores in Task 1 were 3.4 (SD 0.6) in Group 1, 3.4 (SD 0.6) in Group 2 and 5.1 (SD 1.1) in Group 3, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in score between Group 1 and 3 (p = 0.01), and group 2 and 3 (p = 0.01). In Task 2 no statistical significant differences were found. In Task 3, the total mean scores were 1.7 (SD 0.7) in Group 1, 1.9 (SD 0.9) in Group 2 and 2.8 (SD 0.5) in Group 3, respectively. The difference in score between study groups was statistically significant when comparing Group 1 and Group 3 (p < 0.01) and Group 2 and Group 3 (p = 0.02).In Task 4, the difference in used time between group 1 and 3 was statistically significant (p = 0.03). In task 5 there was a significant difference in performance score between group 1 and 3 (p = 0.01). There was significant difference in scores between the experienced and the inexperienced gynecologist in four out of five tasks.The scoring system is easy assessable and can be used for summative and formative feedback in proficiency-based assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31673693
doi: 10.1016/j.eurox.2019.100092
pii: S2590-1613(19)30125-5
pii: 100092
pmc: PMC6817681
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100092Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Am J Surg. 2010 Jan;199(1):72-80
pubmed: 20103069
Am J Surg. 2010 Jan;199(1):99-104
pubmed: 20103073
BJOG. 2006 Dec;113(12):1382-7
pubmed: 17081183
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015 Aug;20(3):829-34
pubmed: 25260974
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014 Apr;93(4):359-66
pubmed: 24392777
Surg Endosc. 2009 Mar;23(3):645-9
pubmed: 18622548
Contemp Clin Trials. 2009 Sep;30(5):490-6
pubmed: 19577012
J Surg Educ. 2017 Mar - Apr;74(2):243-250
pubmed: 27717707
Surg Endosc. 2006 Sep;20(9):1460-6
pubmed: 16823649
Ann Surg. 2007 Nov;246(5):771-9
pubmed: 17968168
BMJ. 2009 May 14;338:b1802
pubmed: 19443914
Surg Endosc. 2007 Feb;21(2):214-9
pubmed: 17122979
Surg Endosc. 2008 Mar;22(3):664-7
pubmed: 17704889
J Surg Res. 2004 Dec;122(2):150-6
pubmed: 15555611
J Surg Educ. 2016 Jul-Aug;73(4):600-8
pubmed: 26966082
Ann Surg. 2002 Oct;236(4):458-63; discussion 463-4
pubmed: 12368674