Comparing proficiency of obstetrics and gynaecology trainees with general surgery trainees using simulated laparoscopic tasks in Health Education England, North-West: a prospective observational study.
gynaecology
medical education & training
obstetrics
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 11 2023
10 11 2023
Historique:
medline:
13
11
2023
pubmed:
11
11
2023
entrez:
10
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Training programmes for obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) and general surgery (GS) vary significantly, but both require proficiency in laparoscopic skills. We sought to determine performance in each specialty. Prospective, observational study. Health Education England North-West, UK. 47 surgical trainees (24 O&G and 23 GS) were subdivided into four groups: 11 junior O&G, 13 senior O&G, 11 junior GS and 12 senior GS trainees. Trainees were tested on four simulated laparoscopic tasks: laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN), hand-eye coordination (HEC), bimanual coordination (BMC) and suturing with intracorporeal knot tying (suturing). O&G trainees completed LCN (p<0.001), HEC (p<0.001) and BMC (p<0.001) significantly slower than GS trainees. Furthermore, O&G found fewer number of targets in LCN (p=0.001) and dropped a greater number of pins than the GS trainees in BMC (p=0.04). In all three tasks, there were significant differences between O&G and GS trainees but no difference between the junior and senior groups within each specialty. Performance in suturing also varied by specialty; senior O&G trainees scored significantly lower than senior GS trainees (O&G 11.4±4.4 vs GS 16.8±2.1, p=0.03). Whilst suturing scores improved with seniority among O&G trainees, there was no difference between the junior and senior GS trainees (senior O&G 11.4±4.4 vs junior O&G 3.6±2.1, p=0.004). GS trainees performed better than O&G trainees in core laparoscopic skills, and the structure of O&G training may require modification. ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05116332).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Training programmes for obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) and general surgery (GS) vary significantly, but both require proficiency in laparoscopic skills. We sought to determine performance in each specialty.
DESIGN
Prospective, observational study.
SETTING
Health Education England North-West, UK.
PARTICIPANTS
47 surgical trainees (24 O&G and 23 GS) were subdivided into four groups: 11 junior O&G, 13 senior O&G, 11 junior GS and 12 senior GS trainees.
OBJECTIVES
Trainees were tested on four simulated laparoscopic tasks: laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN), hand-eye coordination (HEC), bimanual coordination (BMC) and suturing with intracorporeal knot tying (suturing).
RESULTS
O&G trainees completed LCN (p<0.001), HEC (p<0.001) and BMC (p<0.001) significantly slower than GS trainees. Furthermore, O&G found fewer number of targets in LCN (p=0.001) and dropped a greater number of pins than the GS trainees in BMC (p=0.04). In all three tasks, there were significant differences between O&G and GS trainees but no difference between the junior and senior groups within each specialty. Performance in suturing also varied by specialty; senior O&G trainees scored significantly lower than senior GS trainees (O&G 11.4±4.4 vs GS 16.8±2.1, p=0.03). Whilst suturing scores improved with seniority among O&G trainees, there was no difference between the junior and senior GS trainees (senior O&G 11.4±4.4 vs junior O&G 3.6±2.1, p=0.004).
DISCUSSION
GS trainees performed better than O&G trainees in core laparoscopic skills, and the structure of O&G training may require modification.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05116332).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37949619
pii: bmjopen-2023-075113
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075113
pmc: PMC10649792
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05116332']
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e075113Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jul;34(5):435-8
pubmed: 24725107
Surg Endosc. 2022 Jun;36(6):4376-4385
pubmed: 34750707
Int J Surg. 2013;11(9):773-8
pubmed: 23838344
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010 Oct;89(10):1350-3
pubmed: 20846068
Med Teach. 2005 Jan;27(1):10-28
pubmed: 16147767
Gynecol Surg. 2016;13(4):395-402
pubmed: 28003800
Br J Surg. 2014 Aug;101(9):1063-76
pubmed: 24827930
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2015;7(3):153-60
pubmed: 26977264
Surg Endosc. 2015 Nov;29(11):3065-73
pubmed: 25631116
Ann Surg. 2012 Jul;256(1):25-32
pubmed: 22664557
Int J Med Educ. 2011 Jun 27;2:53-55
pubmed: 28029643
BMC Med Educ. 2011 Jun 13;11:32
pubmed: 21668984
Innov Aging. 2019 Sep 04;3(4):igz036
pubmed: 31528719
Behav Res Ther. 2017 Nov;98:19-38
pubmed: 28577757
Ann Surg. 2012 Aug;256(2):387-93
pubmed: 22580935
J Surg Educ. 2018 Mar - Apr;75(2):471-480
pubmed: 28843958
Am J Surg. 2005 Aug;190(2):239-43
pubmed: 16023438
Surg Endosc. 2021 Oct;35(10):5816-5826
pubmed: 33051759
Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Nov;96(5 Pt 1):763-6
pubmed: 11042315
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Mar;121(3):578-584
pubmed: 23635621
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 21;355(25):2664-9
pubmed: 17182991
BMJ. 1997 Feb 22;314(7080):572
pubmed: 9055718
Surgery. 2009 Aug;146(2):381-6
pubmed: 19628099
Ann Surg. 2007 Nov;246(5):771-9
pubmed: 17968168