Abstract
Introduction
Not all hospitals have a MIS training facility because often training is not a main corporate objective and could require lots of money. We tried to build a laparoscopic simulator that was effective and that would allow to carry out an adequate laparoscopic training similar to that obtained with the models normally used in MIS training programs. To construct a box trainer that would achieve the equivalent results than those usually used. A validation study was carried out by evaluating the content validity and construct validity of our simulator in addition a comparison study of our homemade trainer vs Karl Storz box trainer was performed.
Material and methods
The HM laparoscopic trainer was assembled using a wood frame. Two LED lights were positioned on the inside roof of the trainer and a webcam was positioned through a special support as operative optic. The webcam was then connected to a PC and the latter was used as a monitor for the operator. Participants were 20 students and a group of 6 surgeons. Students were prospectively randomized to perform 4 of the 5 tasks of the fundamental laparoscopic surgery (FLS) program on both the HM trainer and the KS trainer (pegboard transfer, pattern cut, placement of ligating loop and intracorporeal knot suture). Simple paired t test was performed to compare times between the trainers. Then students performed two more sets of exercises on the HM. The group of surgeons performed three sets of the same exercises performed by the students on the HM. The time taken by surgeons and students to complete the exercises was compared using t test. At the end, all the participants carried out a questionnaire to evaluate their experience with the HM box trainer. For the questionnaire it was chosen to use a Linkert 1–5 scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree).
Results
HM vs KS BT: Comparing time to complete the 4 tasks performed by students on both the BT, for the first task the p value was 0.30, for the second task 0.48, for the third task 0.80, for the fourth task 0.93, and for the total time 0.86. The comparison between the mean time of the first set of tasks of the participants who started with the HM BT and one of the participants who started on the KS p value was 1 p = 0.09; task 2 p = 0.32; task 3 p = 0.62; task 4 p = 0.32; total time p = 0.81. The comparison between the meantime of the second set of tasks of the participants who switched to the HM BT with the one of those who switched to the KS BT showed a p value of: p = 0.20 tasks 1 p = 0.53 task 2; p = 0.39 task 3; p = 0.30 task 4; p = 0.56 total time. Construct validity: The mean experts and students time of every single task and the total one showed a p value of: p < 0.01 for task 1; p < 0.01 task 2; p < 0.01 task 3; p < 0.01 task 4; p < 0.01 total time. Content validity: Both experts and students indicated the HM BT as a useful training tool and appreciated its easy use. Both groups would use it at home if it were available.
Conclusion
Valid MIS trainer can be easily built at home with few low-cost materials. Our study shows how training programs can be structured even with few resources in a creative and innovative way.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Romero P, Günther P, Kowalewski K-F, Friedrich M, Schmidt MW, Trent SM et al (2018) Halsted’s “see one, do one, and teach one” versus Peyton’s four-step approach: a randomized trial for training of laparoscopic suturing and knot tying. J Surg Educ 75(2):510–515
Zendejas B, Ruparel RK, Cook DA (2016) Validity evidence for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) program as an assessment tool: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30(2):512–520
Li MM, George J (2017) A systematic review of low-cost laparoscopic simulators. Surg Endosc 31(1):38–48
McDougall EM (2007) Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 21(3):244–247
Schout BMA, Hendrikx AJM, Scheele F, Bemelmans BLH, Scherpbier AJJA (2010) Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc 24(3):536–546
Spruit EN, Band GPH, Hamming JF, Ridderinkhof KR (2014) Optimal training design for procedural motor skills: a review and application to laparoscopic surgery. Psychol Res 78(6):878–891
Chandrasekera SK, Donohue JF, Orley D, Barber NJ, Shah N, Bishai PM et al (2006) Basic laparoscopic surgical training: examination of a low-cost alternative. Eur Urol 50(6):1285–1291
Robinson JK, Kushner DM (2006) Development and validation of a home-based, mirrored, gynecologic laparoscopy trainer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(2):102–107
Lee M, Savage J, Dias M, Bergersen P, Winter M (2015) Box, cable and smartphone: a simple laparoscopic trainer. Clin Teach 12(6):384–388
Mann J, Rolinger J, Axt S, Kirschniak A, Wilhelm P (2019) Novel box trainer for ta TME—prospective evaluation among medical students. Innov Surg Sci 4(3):116–120
Crochet P, Schmitt A, Rambeaud C, Estrade JP, Karsenty G, Torre A et al (2018) Mandatory completion of a box trainer curriculum prior to laparoscopic apprenticeship in the OR for surgical residents: a before and after study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 47(4):157–161
Sellers T, Ghannam M, Asantey K, Klei J, Olive E, Roach V (2019) Low-cost laparoscopic skill training for medical students using homemade equipment. MedEdPORTAL 15:10810
Gravante G, Venditti D (2013) A systematic review on low-cost box models to achieve basic and advanced laparoscopic skills during modern surgical training. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23(2):109–120
Hennessey IAM, Hewett P (2013) Construct, concurrent, and content validity of the eoSim laparoscopic simulator. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23(10):855–860
Patel EA, Aydın A, Desai A, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K (2019) Current status of simulation-based training in pediatric surgery: a systematic review. J Pediatr Surg 54(9):1884–1893
Wells JM, Nair D, Cook N, Yi M, Moorhead A, Maoate K et al (2020) End-user input into the design and validation of a synthetic thoracoscopic esophageal atresia/tracheo-esophageal fistula simulator. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 30(6):685–691
Williams A, McWilliam M, Ahlin J, Davidson J, Quantz MA, Bütter A (2018) A simulated training model for laparoscopic pyloromyotomy: is 3D printing the way of the future? J Pediatr Surg 53(5):937–941
Cheung CL, Looi T, Lendvay TS, Drake JM, Farhat WA (2014) Use of 3-dimensional printing technology and silicone modeling in surgical simulation: development and face validation in pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Surg Educ 71(5):762–767
Funding
No external funding for this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by GP, TG, ML and ML. The first draft of the manuscript was written by GP and LM and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. CC helped with the figure productions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No conflicts of interest to disclose.
Financial disclosure
None of the authors has financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Parente, G., De Marziani, L., Cordola, C. et al. Training minimally invasive surgery’s basic skills: is expensive always better?. Pediatr Surg Int 37, 1287–1293 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-021-04937-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-021-04937-8