Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Low-Cost Synthetic Abdominal Wall Model (“Raj Model”) for the Training of Laparoscopic Port Insertion

  • Innovative Surgical Techniques Around the World
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess the content validity of a low-cost bench-top model (“Raj Model”) for the training of laparoscopic port insertion at the Urology Simulation Bootcamp course (USBC).

Materials and methods

A low-cost abdominal wall model of 40 × 40 cm was created to simulate laparoscopic port placement. The model was made using different synthetic materials to represent layers (skin—vinyl sheet, subcutaneous fat—10 mm soft foam, anterior rectus sheath and muscle—floor mat, posterior rectus sheath—masking wall tape, peritoneum—sellotape). Each model was used by up to 3 trainees to practise laparoscopic port placement. The model was assessed for content validity by trainees and experts using a 5-point Likert scale.

Result

In total, 88 trainees and 6 experts participated in the study. For all aspects of the synthetic abdominal wall, good (4) or very good (5) scores ranged from 52.7–69.2%, whereas very poor (1) rating ranged from 0 to 4.3%. There was no significant difference in responses for the content validity of the model between trainees and experts. There was a high intraclass correlation amongst responses from trainees (0.89) and experts (0.79). Approximately 76.3% of trainees and experts felt that the model is suitable for training.

Conclusion

This is the first validation study of a low-cost abdominal wall model for teaching laparoscopic port placement for trainees. Our study demonstrates that this synthetic model has high content validity and is useful for surgical training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

USBC:

Urology simulation bootcamp course

EWTR:

European working time regulations

JCST:

Joint committee on surgical training

VR:

Virtual reality

References

  1. Giles JA (2010) Surgical training and the European working time directive: the role of informal workplace learning. Int J Surg 8(3):179–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. England RCoSo (2015) Improving surgical training: proposal for pilot surgical training programme, pp 12–13

  3. Flanders D, Pirpiris A, Corcoran N, Forsyth R, Grills R (2019) Lessons learned and new challenges: re-evaluation of end-user assessment of a skills-based training program for urology trainees. J Med Educ Curric Dev 6:2382120519834552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pena G, Altree M, Field J, Sainsbury D, Babidge W, Hewett P et al (2015) Nontechnical skills training for the operating room: a prospective study using simulation and didactic workshop. Surgery 158(1):300–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brewin J, Ahmed K, Khan MS, Jaye P, Dasgupta P (2014) Face, content, and construct validation of the Bristol TURP trainer. J Surg Educ 71(4):500–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sutherland LM, Middleton PF, Anthony A, Hamdorf J, Cregan P, Scott D et al (2006) Surgical simulation: a systematic review. Ann Surg 243(3):291–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Young M, Kailavasan M, Taylor J, Cornford P, Colquhoun A, Rochester M et al (2019) The success and evolution of a urological “Boot Camp” for newly appointed UK urology registrars: incorporating simulation, nontechnical skills and assessment. J Surg Educ 76(5):1425–1432

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. JCoST (JCST) (2018) Quality indicators for surgical training: core surgical training (2018). https://www.jcst.org/-/media/files/jcst/quality-assurance/quality-indicators/core-qis–final-v8.pdf. Accessed July 2019

  9. Tan SC, Marlow N, Field J, Altree M, Babidge W, Hewett P et al (2012) A randomized crossover trial examining low- versus high-fidelity simulation in basic laparoscopic skills training. Surg Endosc 26(11):3207–3214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Steigerwald SN, Park J, Hardy KM, Gillman LM, Vergis AS (2015) Does laparoscopic simulation predict intraoperative performance? A comparison between the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery and LapVR evaluation metrics. Am J Surg 209(1):34–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schout BM, Hendrikx AJ, Scheele F, Bemelmans BL, Scherpbier AJ (2010) Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc 24(3):536–546

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all laparoscopic module faculty members (Mr N Vasdev, Mr N Eroneni, Mr G Lewis, Mr S Pathak, Mr R Rajasundaram, Mr J Levickis, Mr R Veerattarapillay) and Leeds Medical Education staff for their fantastic support.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospital Coventry & Warwickshire, Coventry, UK

    Mithun Kailavasan

  2. Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK

    Christopher Berridge

  3. Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK

    Gokul Kandaswamy

  4. Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK

    Bhavan Rai

  5. Sheffield Teaching Hospital, Sheffield, UK

    Beverley Wilkinson

  6. Department of Urology, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK

    Sunjay Jain & Chandra Shekhar Biyani

  7. James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK

    Basavaraj Gowda

Authors
  1. Mithun Kailavasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Berridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gokul Kandaswamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bhavan Rai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Beverley Wilkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sunjay Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chandra Shekhar Biyani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Basavaraj Gowda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study concept and design: CSB, BG; Acquisition of data: MK, CB, GK, BR, BW, SJ; Analysis and interpretation: MK, CB; Study supervision: CSB, BG.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandra Shekhar Biyani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kailavasan, M., Berridge, C., Kandaswamy, G. et al. A Low-Cost Synthetic Abdominal Wall Model (“Raj Model”) for the Training of Laparoscopic Port Insertion. World J Surg 44, 1431–1435 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05354-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05354-8

Search

Navigation