Skip to main content

The influence of different training schedules on the learning of psychomotor skills for endoscopic surgery

Surgical Endoscopy volume 21, pages 214–219 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Psychomotor skills for endoscopic surgery can be trained with virtual reality simulators. Distributed training is more effective than massed training, but it is unclear whether distributed training over several days is more effective than distributed training within 1 day. This study aimed to determine which of these two options is the most effective for training endoscopic psychomotor skills.

Methods

Students with no endoscopic experience were randomly assigned either to distributed training on 3 consecutive days (group A, n = 10) or distributed training within 1 day (group B, n = 10). For this study the SIMENDO virtual reality simulator for endoscopic skills was used. The training involved 12 repetitions of three different exercises (drop balls, needle manipulation, 30° endoscope) in differently distributed training schedules. All the participants performed a posttraining test (posttest) for the trained tasks 7 days after the training. The parameters measured were time, nontarget environment collisions, and instrument path length.

Results

There were no significant differences between the groups in the first training session for all the parameters. In the posttest, group A (training over several days) performed 18.7% faster than group B (training on 1 day) (p = 0.013). The collision and path length scores for group A did not differ significantly from the scores for group B.

Conclusion

The distributed group trained over several days was faster, with the same number of errors and the same instrument path length used. Psychomotor skill training for endoscopic surgery distributed over several days is superior to training on 1 day.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

References

  1. Bock O, Schneider S, Bloomberg J (2001) Conditions for interference versus facilitation during sequential sensorimotor adaptation. Brain Res 138: 359–365

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brashers-Krug T, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E (1996) Consolidation in human motor memory. Nature 382: 252–255

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dar-el E (2000) Human learning: from learning curves to learning organizations. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Haifa

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Donovan JR, Radosevich DJ (1999) A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: now you see it, now you don’t. J Appl Psychol 84: 795–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Duffy AJ, Hogle NJ, McCarthy H, Lew JI, Egan A, Christos P, Fowler DL (2005) Construct validity for the LAPSIM laparoscopic surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 19: 401–405

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gallagher AG, Lederman AB, McGlade K, Satava RM, Smith CD (2004) Discriminative validity of the Minimally Invasive Surgical Trainer in Virtual Reality (MIST-VR) using criteria levels based on expert performance. Surg Endosc 18: 660–665

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H, Higgins G, Fried MP, Moses G, Smith CD, Satava RM (2005) Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg 241: 364–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grantcharov TPB, Funch-Jensen L, Rosenberg P (2003) Learning curves and impact of previous operative experience on performance on a virtual reality simulator to test laparoscopic surgical skills. Am J Surg 185: 146–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hyltander A, Liljegren E, Rhodin PH, Lonroth H (2002) The transfer of basic skills learned in a laparoscopic simulator to the operating room. Surg Endosc 16: 1324–1328

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Krakauer JW, Ghez C, Ghilardi MF (2005) Adaptation to visuomotor transformations: consolidation, interference, and forgetting. J Neurosci 25: 473–478

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee TD, Genovese ED (1988) Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: learning and performance effects reconsidered. Research Quarterly 59: 277–287

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mackay S, Morgan P, Datta V, Chang A, Darzi A (2002) Practice distribution in procedural skills training: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 16: 957–961

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schijven M, Jakimowicz J (2003) Construct validity: experts and novices performing on the Xitact LS500 laparoscopy simulator. Surg Endosc 17: 803–810

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236: 458–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shadmehr R, Brashers-Krug T (1997) Functional stages in the formation of human long-term motor memory. J Neurosci 17: 409–419

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Verdaasdonk EGG, Stassen LPS, Monteny L, Dankelman J (2005) Validation of a new and simple virtual reality simulator for training of basic endoscopic skills. The SIMENDO. Surg Endosc 20: 511–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Walker MB, Morgan A, Hobson JA, Stickgold R (2002) Practice with sleep makes perfect: sleep-dependent motor skill learning. Neuron 35: 205–211

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Walker MP, Stickgold R, Alsop D, Gaab N, Schlaug G (2005) Sleep-dependent motor memory plasticity in the human brain. Neuroscience 133: 911–917

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Windsor JA, Zoha F (2005) The laparoscopic performance of novice surgical trainees: testing for acquisition, loss, and reacquisition of psychomotor skills. Surg Endosc 19: 1058–1063

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Man-Machine Systems Group, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628, CD, Delft, The Netherlands

    E. G. G. Verdaasdonk, L. P. S. Stassen, R. P. J. van Wijk & J. Dankelman

  2. Department of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Group, Delft, The Netherlands

    E. G. G. Verdaasdonk & L. P. S. Stassen

Authors
  1. E. G. G. Verdaasdonk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. P. S. Stassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. P. J. van Wijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Dankelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. G. G. Verdaasdonk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verdaasdonk, E.G.G., Stassen, L.P.S., van Wijk, R.P.J. et al. The influence of different training schedules on the learning of psychomotor skills for endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 21, 214–219 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0852-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0852-8

Keywords

  • Endoscopic
  • Laparoscopic
  • Psychomotor skills
  • Training
  • Training schedules
  • VR simulator