Page 43 - WJOLS - Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Juan U González-Tova, Pallikonda S Madhulika

(Cont’d…)

Results from research studies Intervention group was significantly better in object visualization (p < 0.05), scope orientation (p < 0.05), and horizon errors (p < 0.05) Intervention group showed greater improvement in error (p = 0.003) and economy of movement (p = 0.003) Intervention group was signifi- cantly faster than the control group when performing cholecystectomy (p = 0.021) Study 1 and 3: No significant differences were found betwe

Skills assessed posttraining 12 structured scope navigation tasks in three phases: (1) Navigation within the peritoneal cavity, (2) Navigation around the retracted gallbladder, (3) Navigation around a suspended small intestinal loop Economy of movement: (1) Unnecessary movements, (2) Confidence of movements Errors: (1) Respect for tissue, (2) Precision of operative technique Study 1 and 3: GOALS rating: (1) Depth perception, (2) Bimanual dexter

Source of final assessment ratings 3 External observers (90%) and from Endo Tower simulator 2 Senior surgeons rated 1 surgery (Cohen’s kappa 0.71) Study 1: Attending surgeon Study 3: Observer Three expert robotic surgeons blinded Observers Observers Observers Objective scores based on time and errors using a published formula

Contextual setting for final assessment Porcine model (pre and post) Patients in OR Study 1: OR patients Study 3: Porcine model (pre and post) Porcine model Porcine model (pre and post) Patients in OR (post only, pre was on a VR simulator) Patients in OR (post only, pre was only ability tests) Porcine model (pre and post)

(Cont’d…) Citation Ganai et al 20 Grantcharov et al 17 Hogle et al 25 Hung et al 31 Korndorffer et al 32 Larsen et al 16 Seymour et al 26 Stefanidis et al 21

124