...
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Surgery >A comparison of 2 Ex vivo training curricula for advanced laparoscopic skills: A randomized controlled trial
【24h】

A comparison of 2 Ex vivo training curricula for advanced laparoscopic skills: A randomized controlled trial

机译:两种先进的腹腔镜技术离体培训课程的比较:一项随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and cost of 2 ex vivo training curricula for laparoscopic suturing. Background: Although simulators have been developed to teach laparoscopic suturing, a barrier to their wide implementation in training programs is a lack of knowledge regarding their relative training benefit and their associated cost. Method: This prospective single-blinded randomized trial allocated 24 surgical residents to train to proficiency using either a virtual reality (VR) simulator or box trainer. All residents then placed intracorporeal laparoscopic stitches during a Nissen fundoplication on a patient. The operating room (OR) cases were video-recorded and technical proficiency was assessed using 2 validated tools. OR performance of both groups was compared to that of conventionally trained residents and to fellowship-trained surgeons. A cost analysis of box training, VR training, and conventional residency training across Canadian surgical programs was performed. Results: After ex vivo training, no significant differences in laparoscopic suturing in the OR were found between the 2 groups with respect to time (P = 0.74)-global rating score (P = 0.65) or checklist score (P = 0.97). It took conventionally trained residents 6 practice attempts in the OR to achieve the technical proficiency of the ex vivo trained groups (P = 0.83). VR training was more efficient than box training (transfer effectiveness ratio of 2.31 vs 1.13). The annual cost of training 5 residents on the FLS trainer box was $11,975.00, on the VR simulator was $77,500.00, and conventional residency training was $17,380.00. Over 5 years, box training was the most cost-effective option for all programs, and VR training was more cost-effective for programs with more 10 residents. Conclusions: Training on either a VR simulator or on a box trainer significantly decreased the learning curve necessary to learn laparoscopic suturing. VR training, however, is the more efficient training modality, whereas box training the more cost-effective option.
机译:目的:比较两种腹腔镜缝合离体训练课程的有效性和成本。背景:尽管已经开发了用于教授腹腔镜缝合的模拟器,但在培训计划中广泛实施模拟器的障碍是缺乏有关其相对培训益处和相关成本的知识。方法:这项前瞻性单盲随机试验分配了24名外科住院医师,以使用虚拟现实(VR)模拟器或盒装培训师进行熟练程度培训。然后,在Nissen胃底折叠术中,所有患者都将腹腔内缝合针放在患者身上。对手术室(OR)案例进行录像,并使用2个经过验证的工具评估技术熟练程度。将两组的手术室表现与常规培训的住院医师以及与研究金培训过的外科医生进行比较。在加拿大的外科手术计划中,进行了盒式培训,VR培训和常规住院医师培训的成本分析。结果:在离体训练后,在时间(P = 0.74)-总体评分(P = 0.65)或检查表评分(P = 0.97)方面,两组之间的腹腔镜缝合在OR中均无显着差异。经过常规培训的居民在OR中进行了6次实践尝试,以达到离体培训组的技术水平(P = 0.83)。 VR训练比框式训练更有效(转移效率比为2.31对1.13)。在FLS培训箱上培训5位居民的年度费用为11,975.00美元,在VR模拟器上的培训费用为77,500.00美元,常规的驻地培训费用为17,380.00美元。在过去的5年中,盒式培训是所有计划中最具成本效益的选择,而VR培训对于拥有10个以上居民的计划而言更具成本效益。结论:在VR模拟器或盒装教练机上进行的培训大大降低了学习腹腔镜缝合所需的学习曲线。但是,VR训练是更有效的训练方式,而框式训练是更具成本效益的选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号