Training of laparoscopic novices both individually and in dyads using a simulation task

  • Francesca B. SealEmail author
  • Wenjing He
  • David Pinzon
  • Bin Zheng
Original Article


Non-technical skill training improves outcomes in surgery and quantifying the effects of this training may aid in designing surgical teaching models. In our study, 12 novices performed a wire-chaser laparoscopic task in 9 training sessions, working both as individuals and dyads. Task duration (p < 0.001), number of ring-wire contacts (p < 0.001), total duration of contact (p < 0.001), and number of pick up attempts (p = 0.044) all showed significant improvement in both groups with no significant difference in the learning curves between individuals and dyads. There was, however, an interaction effect for the number of ring-wire contacts (p = 0.027) whereby the number of contacts dropped more dramatically among dyads. Dyads also performed significantly more anticipatory movements than individuals (p = 0.005). Novices performed similarly when working individually and as dyads, suggesting that the need for collaboration neither hindered nor helped performance for our particular task.


Simulation training Surgical skills Team collaboration Team performance Laparoscopy Task performance and analysis 



The authors would like to thank Bo Bao for his assistance with data collection. We also thank the Royal Alexandra Hospital Foundation for supporting this project through the MIS (Minimally Invasive Surgery) Research Program.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Francesca Seal, Wenjing He, David Pinzon, and Bin Zheng declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria S Jr., Jacobson L, Quinones J, Shen B, Levine AI (2009) The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence? Mt Sinai J Med 76(4):330–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones M, Howells N, Mitchell S, Burnand H, Mutimer J, Longman R (2014) Human-factors training for surgical trainees. Clin Teach 11(3):165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Roth EM, Sheridan TB, Gandhi TK, Dwyer K, Zinner MJ, Dierks MM (2006) A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery 139(2):159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA (2003) Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 133(6):614–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, Regehr G, Baker GR, Reznick R, Bohnen J, Orser B, Doran D, Grober E (2004) Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Safe Health Care 13(5):330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Birch DW, Bonjer HJ, Crossley C et al (2009) Canadian consensus conference on the developmet of training and practice standards in advanced minimally invasive surgery: Edmonton, Alta., Jun. 1, 2007. Can J Surg 52:321–327Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zheng B, Verjee E, Lomax A, MacKenzie CL (2005) Video analysis of endoscopic cutting task performed by one versus two operators. Surg Endosc 19(10):1388–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zheng B, Swanström LL, MacKenzie CL (2007) A laboratory study on anticipatory movement in laparoscopic surgery: a behavioural indicator for team collabortation. Surg Endosc 21(6):935–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crites MJ, Gorman JC (2017) Bimanual coupling and the intermanual speed advantage. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 59th annual meeting, Santa Monica, CA, pp 1385–1389Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glynn SJ, Henning RA (2000) Can teams outperform individuals in a simulated dynamic control task? In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 44th annual meeting, Santa Monica, CA, pp 141–144Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reed K, Peshkin M, Hartmann MJ, Grabowecky M, Patton J, Vishton PM (2006) Haptically linked dyads: are two motor-control systems better than one? Psychol Sci 17(5):365–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shanks D, Brydges R, den Brok W, Nair P, Hatala R (2013) Are two heads better than one? Comparing dyad and self-regulated learning in simulation training. Med Educ 47(12):1215–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surgical Simulation Research Lab, Department of SurgeryUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations