Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1830–1837 | Cite as

Distribution of innate ability for surgery amongst medical students assessed by an advanced virtual reality surgical simulator

  • Andrea Moglia
  • Vincenzo Ferrari
  • Luca Morelli
  • Franca Melfi
  • Mauro Ferrari
  • Franco Mosca
  • Alfred Cuschieri
Article

Abstract

Background

Surgery is a craft profession requiring individuals with specific, well-documented innate aptitude for manipulative skills. Yet in most countries, the current selection process of surgical trainees does not include aptitude testing for the psychomotor and manipulative skills of candidates.

Methods

A total of 125 participants (121 medical students and four expert surgeons) performed all 26 exercises of the da Vinci Skills Simulator, with six exercises being identified as metrics of aptitude for manipulative and psychomotor skills. The expert surgeons were enrolled as the control group to validate the performance of the most talented students.

Results

Eight students (6.6 %) significantly outperformed the remaining 113, obtaining a median value of the sum of weighted overall score on the six selected exercises of 52.7 % versus 21.0 % (p < 0.001). In contrast, 14 students (11.6 %) performed significantly worse and well below the performance of the other 107, with a median value of overall score of 8.7 % versus 24.1 (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between expert surgeons (control group) and the eight talented students (62.1 % vs. 52.7 %, respectively; p = 0.368). No significant correlation between exposure to video games and overall score (ρ = 0.330) was observed.

Conclusions

In terms of innate aptitude for manipulative and psychomotor abilities, the present investigation has documented two subpopulations that fall outside the norm for the group of medical students recruited for the study: (i) a small group (6.6 %) with a high level and (ii) a larger cohort (11.6 %) with low level (significantly below the norm) innate aptitude for surgery. Exposure to video game experience did not appear to influence performances on the da Vinci Skills Simulator.

Keywords

Innate aptitude Ability Psychomotor aptitude tests Selection of surgical trainees Surgical skills and competence da Vinci Skills Simulator 

References

  1. 1.
    Bridges M, Diamond DL (1999) The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. Am J Surg 177:28–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bingham WV (1937) Aptitudes and aptitude testing. Harper and Brothers Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cuschieri A (1995) Whither minimal access surgery: tribulations and expectations. Am J Surg 169:9–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gallagher AG, O’Sullivan GC, Neary PC, Carroll SM, Leonard G, Bunting BP et al (2013) An objective evaluation of a multi-component, competitive, selection process for admitting surgeons into higher surgical training in a national setting. World J Surg. doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2302-4 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carroll SM, Kennedy AM, Traynor O, Gallagher AG (2009) Objective assessment of surgical performance and its impact on a national selection programme of candidates for higher surgical training in plastic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:1543–1549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gallagher AG, Neary P, Gillen P, Lane B, Whelan A, Tanner WA et al (2008) Novel method for assessment and selection of trainees for higher surgical training in general surgery. ANZ J Surg 78:282–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ackerman PL, Chamorro-Premuzic T, Furnham A (2011) Trait complexes and academic achievement: old and new ways of examining personality in educational contexts. Br J Educ Psychol 81(Pt 1):27–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ball CG, Kirkpatrick AW, Feliciano DV, Reznick R, McSwain NE (2008) Surgeons and astronauts: so close, yet so far apart. Can J Surg 51:247–250PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cuschieri A, Francis N, Crosby J, Hanna GB (2001) What do master surgeons think of surgical competence and revalidation? Am J Surg 182:110–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aiken RL (2006) Psychological testing and assessment. Pearson Publishers, Upper Saddle River (NJ)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kennedy AM, Boyle EM, Traynor O, Walsh T, Hill AD (2011) Video gaming enhances psychomotor skills but not visuospatial and perceptual abilities in surgical trainees. J Surg Educ 68:414–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macmillan AI, Cuschieri A (1999) Assessment of innate ability and skills for endoscopic manipulations by the Advanced Dundee Endoscopic Psychomotor Tester: predictive and concurrent validity. Am J Surg 177:274–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maan ZN, Maan IN, Darzi AW, Aggarwal R (2012) Systematic review of predictors of surgical performance. Br J Surg 99:1610–1621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallagher AG, Leonard G, Traynor OJ (2009) Role and feasibility of psychomotor and dexterity testing in selection for surgical training. ANZ J Surg 79:108–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofstad EF, Våpenstad C, Chmarra MK, Langø T, Kuhry E, Mårvik R (2013) A study of psychomotor skills in minimally invasive surgery: what differentiates expert and nonexpert performance. Surg Endosc 27:854–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosser JC Jr, Rosser LE, Savalgi RS (1998) Objective evaluation of a laparoscopic surgical skill program for residents and senior surgeons. Arch Surg 133:657–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gallagher AG, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality as a metric for the assessment of laparoscopic psychomotor skills: learning curves and reliability measures. Surg Endosc 16:1746–1752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oropesa I, Sánchez-González P, Lamata P, Chmarra MK, Pagador JB, Sánchez-Margallo JA et al (2011) Methods and tools for objective assessment of psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Res 171:e81–e95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Satava RM, Cuschieri A, Hamdorf J (2003) Metrics for objective assessment. Surg Endosc 17:220–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, Guru KA, Challacombe B, Dasgupta P et al (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators: a systematic review. BJU Int 111:194–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kelly DC, Margules AC, Kundavaram CR, Narins H, Gomella LG, Trabulsi EJ et al (2012) Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator. Urology 79:1068–1072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hung AJ, Patil MB, Zehnder P, Cai J, Ng CK, Aron M et al (2012) Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol 187:630–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brinkman WM, Luursema JM, Kengen B, Schout BM, Witjes JA, Bekkers RL (2013) da Vinci Skills Simulator for assessing learning curve and criterion-based training of robotic basic skills. Urology 81:562–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bailey M. Evolution of aptitude testing in the RAF. RTO MP-55 (1999). http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-055///MP-055-25.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2013
  25. 25.
    Ritter EM, McClusky DA 3rd, Gallagher AG, Enochsson L, Smith CD (2006) Perceptual, visuospatial, and psychomotor abilities correlate with duration of training required on a virtual-reality flexible endoscopy simulator. Am J Surg 192:379–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ritter EM, McClusky DA 3rd, Lederman AB, Gallagher AG, Smith CD (2003) Objective psychomotor skills assessment of experienced and novice flexible endoscopists with a virtual reality simulator. J Gastrointest Surg 7:871–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gallagher AG, Cowie R, Crothers I, Jordan-Black JA, Satava RM (2003) PicSOr: an objective test of perceptual skill that predicts laparoscopic technical skill in three initial studies of laparoscopic performance. Surg Endosc 17:1468–1471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gallagher AG, Richie K, McClure N, McGuigan J (2001) Objective psychomotor skills assessment of experienced, junior, and novice laparoscopists with virtual reality. World J Surg 25:1478–1483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McClusky DA 3rd, Ritter EM, Lederman AB, Gallagher AG, Smith CD (2005) Correlation between perceptual, visuo-spatial, and psychomotor aptitude to duration of training required to reach performance goals on the MIST-VR surgical simulator. Am J Surg 71:13–20Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cope DH, Fenton-Lee D (2007) Assessment of laparoscopic psychomotor skills in interns using the MIST Virtual Reality Simulator: a prerequisite for those considering surgical training? ANZ J Surg 78:291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosser JC Jr, Lynch PJ, Cuddihy L, Gentile DA, Klonsky J, Merrell R (2007) The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st century. Arch Surg 142:181–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harper JD, Kaiser S, Ebrahimi K, Lamberton GR, Hadley HR, Ruckle HC et al (2007) Prior video game exposure does not enhance robotic surgical performance. J Endourol 21:1207–1210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lynch J, Aughwane P, Hammond TM (2010) Video games and surgical ability: a literature review. J Surg Educ 67:184–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Moglia
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Ferrari
    • 1
  • Luca Morelli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Franca Melfi
    • 2
  • Mauro Ferrari
    • 1
  • Franco Mosca
    • 3
  • Alfred Cuschieri
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.EndoCAS, Center for Computer Assisted SurgeryUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Multidisciplinary Center of Robotic SurgeryUniversity Hospital of PisaPisaItaly
  3. 3.Cisanello University Hospital of PisaPisaItaly
  4. 4.Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of PisaPisaItaly
  5. 5.Institute for Medical Science and TechnologyUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations