Speed versus damage: using selective feedback to modulate laparoscopic simulator performance.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive training is an approach in which training variables change with the needs and traits of individual trainees. It has potential to mitigate the effect of personality traits such as impulsiveness on surgical performance. Selective performance feedback is one way to implement adaptive training. This paper investigates whether selective feedback can direct performance of trainees of either high- or low impulsiveness. METHODS: A total of 83 inexperienced medical students of known impulsiveness performed a four-session laparoscopic training course on a Virtual Reality Simulator. They performed two identical series of tasks every session. During one series of tasks they received performance feedback on duration and during the other series they received feedback on damage. Performance parameters (duration and damage) were compared between the two series of tasks to assess whether selective performance feedback can be used to steer emphasis in performance. To assess the effectiveness of selective feedback for people of high- or low impulsiveness, the difference in performance between the two series for both duration and damage was also assessed. RESULTS: Participants were faster when given performance feedback for speed for all exercises in all sessions (average z-value = - 4.14, all p values < .05). Also, they performed better on damage control when given performance feedback for damage in all tasks and during all sessions except for one (average z-value = - 4.19, all but one p value < .05). Impulsiveness did not impact the effectiveness of selective feedback. CONCLUSION: Selective feedback on either duration or damage can be used to improve performance for the variable that the trainee receives feedback on. Trainee impulsiveness did not modulate this effect. Selective feedback can be used to steer training focus in adaptive training systems and can mitigate the negative effects of impulsiveness on damage control.

Fast or safe? The role of impulsiveness in laparoscopic simulator performance.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relation between impulsiveness and surgical performance even though research in similar high-risk/high-skills shows evidence of more hazardous behavior by impulsive professionals. We investigated the impact of impulsiveness on laparoscopic simulator performance. METHODS: Eighty-three subjects participated in a four-session laparoscopic training course. Based on the Eysenck Personality test, we created equal sized high- and low impulsiveness groups and compared task duration and errors on tasks for two laparoscopic simulators. RESULTS: The low impulsiveness group outperformed the high impulsiveness group on damage on the LapSim virtual reality trainer (U = 459, p < .049), and showed a trend towards better error performance on the FLS videotrainer. We found no differences on task duration. CONCLUSIONS: In surgical simulation training, high impulsiveness is associated with creating more damage, but not with faster performance. Time needed to correct errors may have obscured faster performance in the high impulsiveness group. SUMMARY FOR THE TABLE OF CONTENTS: Subjects were divided into high- and low impulsiveness groups based on the Eysenck Impulsiveness Inventory test. Performance (time and errors) were compared between groups for tasks on the LapSim virtual reality trainer and FLS videotrainer. Low impulsive subjects outperformed high impulsive subjects on errors.

Competency assessment tool for laparoscopic suturing: development and reliability evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic suturing can be technically challenging and requires extensive training to achieve competency. To date no specific and objective assessment method for laparoscopic suturing and knot tying is available that can guide training and monitor performance in these complex surgical skills. In this study we aimed to develop a laparoscopic suturing competency assessment tool (LS-CAT) and assess its inter-observer reliability. METHODS: We developed a bespoke CAT tool for laparoscopic suturing through a structured, mixed methodology approach, overseen by a steering committee with experience in developing surgical assessment tools. A wide Delphi consultation with over twelve experts in laparoscopic surgery guided the development stages of the tool. Following, subjects with different levels of laparoscopic expertise were included to evaluate this tool, using a simulated laparoscopic suturing task which involved placing of two surgical knots. A research assistant video recorded and anonymised each performance. Two blinded expert surgeons assessed the anonymised videos using the developed LS-CAT. The LS-CAT scores of the two experts were compared to assess the inter-observer reliability. Lastly, we compared the subjects' LS-CAT performance scores at the beginning and end of their learning curve. RESULTS: This study evaluated a novel LS-CAT performance tool, comprising of four tasks. Thirty-six complete videos were analysed and evaluated with the LS-CAT, of which the scores demonstrated excellent inter-observer reliability. Cohen's Kappa analysis revealed good to excellent levels of agreement for almost all tasks of both instrument handling and tissue handling (0.87; 0.77; 0.75; 0.86; 0.85, all with p < 0.001). Subjects performed significantly better at the end of their learning curve compared to their first attempt for all LS-CAT items (all with p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed the LS-CAT, which is a laparoscopic suturing grading matrix, with excellent inter-rater reliability and to discriminate between experience levels. This LS-CAT has a potential for wider use to objectively assess laparoscopic suturing skills.

Peers versus Pros: Feedback using standards in simulation training.

BACKGROUND: Creating and updating expert performance-based standards for simulators is labor intensive and requires the regular availability of expert surgeons. We investigated how peer performance based standards compare to expert performance based standards. METHODS: One hundred medical students took part in a four-session laparoscopic basic skills simulator training course. Performance for the FLS videotrainer tasks were compared between students who received feedback based on either peer standards, expert standards or no feedback at all (control group). RESULTS: No difference in performance between our feedback groups was found. Compared to the control group, they were 18-36% faster but made 52% more errors for tasks on the FLS video trainer (U range [93.5-957], average p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that feedback based on peer standards is equally effective as feedback based on expert standards. The found trade-off between speed and error is not desirable and warrants further investigation.

Saving robots improves laparoscopic performance: transfer of skills from a serious game to a virtual reality simulator.

BACKGROUND: Residents find it hard to commit to structural laparoscopic skills training. Serious gaming has been proposed as a solution on the premise that it is effective and more motivating than traditional simulation. We establish construct validity for the laparoscopic serious game Underground by comparing laparoscopic simulator performance for a control group and an Underground training group. METHODS: A four-session laparoscopic basic skills course is part of the medical master students surgical internship at the Radboud University Medical Centre. Four cohorts, representing 107 participants, were assigned to either the Underground group or the control group. The control group trained on the FLS video trainer and the LapSim virtual reality simulator for four sessions. The Underground group played Underground for three sessions followed by a transfer session on the FLS video trainer and the LapSim. To assess the effect of engaging in serious gameplay on performance on two validated laparoscopic simulators, initial performance on the FLS video trainer and the LapSim was compared between the control group (first session) and the Underground group (fourth session). RESULTS: We chose task duration as a proxy for laparoscopic performance. The Underground group outperformed the control group on all three LapSim tasks: Camera navigation F(1) = 12.71, p < .01; Instrument navigation F(1) = 8.04, p < .01; and Coordination F(1) = 6.36, p = .01. There was no significant effect of playing Underground for performance on the FLS video trainer Peg Transfer task, F(1) = 0.28, p = .60. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated skills transfer between a serious game and validated laparoscopic simulator technology. Serious gaming may become a valuable, cost-effective addition to the skillslab, if transfer to the operating room can be established. Additionally, we discuss sources of transferable skills to help explain our and previous findings.