Physical reality simulation for training of laparoscopists in the 21st century. A multispecialty, multi-institutional study.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Simulation is the most effective and safe way to train laparoscopic surgeons in an era of limited work hours, lack of funding, and increasing malpractice costs. However, the costs associated with the use of virtual reality simulators are significant, and although very technically sophisticated they still lack tactile feedback. We are proposing a physical reality simulator, the LTS 2000, as a reliable and effective alternative to virtual reality. This study was carried out to establish how reliably the simulator was able to differentiate between different levels of laparoscopic experience and to analyze the detection of skills improvement after simulation and clinical training. METHODS: This study was carried out, between July 2002 and August 2003, in the departments of Surgery and Obstetrics and Gynecology at 2 separate institutions. We enrolled 40 individuals in the study who had experience ranging from postgraduate year-1 to full-time faculty level. Five postgraduate year-3 residents were subsequently retested after rotating on clinical services, performing advanced laparoscopic procedures to assess whether the simulator was sensitive enough to detect improvements in laparoscopic skills at the intermediate level. Six tasks were included in the test, and they were scored for speed and precision with the McGill system. Two scores were obtained: a coordination score and a suturing score combined in a total score. Other variables analyzed were handedness, specialty, number of laparoscopic procedures performed, and hours spent on the simulator. RESULTS: Forty-five tests were performed. The number of subjects in each group based on level of experience was equally distributed. No difference occurred in scores between institutions, specialty, and right- or left-handed surgeons. A significant increase occurred in the coordination score and suturing score combined in the total score with increasing experience (P < 0.05) at each level. Furthermore, the simulator was sensitive enough to detect a significant difference in all 3 scores between subjects who had practiced with the simulator before being tested (P < 0.05). The scores of the 5 postgraduate year-3 participants doubled when tested, without reaching statistical significance due to the small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the LTS 2000 reliably and reproducibly detects different levels of laparoscopic expertise and progression of the learning curve. LTS 2000 as a model of physical reality simulation should be considered a reliable alternative to virtual reality simulation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».