Electronic device for endosurgical skills training (EDEST): study of reliability
- 74 Downloads
Minimally Invasive Surgery procedures are commonly used in many surgical practices, but surgeons need specific training models and devices due to its difficulty and complexity. In this paper, an innovative electronic device for endosurgical skills training (EDEST) is presented. A study on reliability for this device was performed.
Different electronic components were used to compose this new training device. The EDEST was focused on two basic laparoscopic tasks: triangulation and coordination manoeuvres. A configuration and statistical software was developed to complement the functionality of the device. A calibration method was used to assure the proper work of the device. A total of 35 subjects (8 experts and 27 novices) were used to check the reliability of the system using the MTBF analysis.
Configuration values for triangulation and coordination exercises were calculated as 0.5 s limit threshold and 800–11,000 lux range of light intensity, respectively. Zero errors in 1,050 executions (0%) for triangulation and 21 errors in 5,670 executions (0.37%) for coordination were obtained. A MTBF of 2.97 h was obtained.
The results show that the reliability of the EDEST device is acceptable when used under previously defined light conditions. These results along with previous work could demonstrate that the EDEST device can help surgeons during first training stages.
KeywordsElectronic device Minimally invasive surgery Surgical assessment Skills training
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Usón J, Sánchez FM, Pascual S, Climent S (2007) Formación en Cirugía Laparoscópica Paso a paso. Centro de Cirugía de Mínima Invasión, CáceresGoogle Scholar
- 27.Kanumuri P, Ganai S, Wohaibi EM, Bush RW, Grow DR, Seymour NE (2008) Virtual reality and computer-enhanced training devices equally improve laparoscopic surgical skill in novice. J Soc Laparo Endosc Surgeons 12(3): 219–226Google Scholar
- 28.Fichera A, Prachan V, Kives S, Levine R, Hasson HM (2004) Physical reality simulation for training of laparoscopists in the 21st century a multi-specialty and multi-institutional study. JSLS 9: 125–129Google Scholar
- 29.Botden SM, Buzink SN, Schijven MP, Jakimowicz JJ (2007) Augmented versus virtual reality laparoscopic simulation: what is the difference? : a comparison of the ProMis augmented reality laparoscopic simulator versus lapsim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator. World J Surg 31(4): 764–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Young D, Cassidy D, Slevin F, Ryan D (2006) Augmented reality simulator for hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy. SAGES 2006, Emerging Technology Poster Abstracts. ETP036Google Scholar
- 51.IEEE 90—Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1990) IEEE standard computer dictionary: a compilation of IEEE standard computer glossaries. New York, NYGoogle Scholar
- 52.Jones JV (2006) Concept of reliability. In: Integrated logistics support handbook. Sole Press, New York, p 4.2Google Scholar
- 53.IIT–Research Institute (2001) Typical Equipment MTBF ValuesGoogle Scholar
- 54.Sánchez-Margallo FM, Sánchez MA, Pérez FJ, Pagador JB, Mateos J, Bustos P, Díaz-Güemes I, Moyano JL, Correa L, Usón J (2009) Dispositivo Electrónico para el Entrenamiento de Técnicas Endoquirúrgicas (DEETE)®: validación clínica subjetiva. XVII Reunión Nacional de CirugíaGoogle Scholar