Impact of Training on Three-Dimensional versus Two-Dimensional Laparoscopic Systems on Acquisition of Laparoscopic Skills in Novices: A Prospective Comparative Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this prospective educational study, 10 medical students (novices) were randomized to practice two basic laparoscopic tasks from the MISTELS program, namely, Pegboard Transfer (PT) and Intracorporeal Knot Tying (IKT) tasks, using either a 2D or a 3D laparoscopic platform. There was no significant difference between both groups in the baseline assessments (PT task: 130.8 ± 18.7 versus 151.5 ± 33.4; <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.35</mml:mn></mml:math>) (IKT task: 123.9 ± 41.0 versus 122.9 ± 44.9; <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.986</mml:mn></mml:math>). Following two training sessions, there was a significant increase in the scores of PT task for the 2D (130.8 ± 18.7 versus 222.6 ± 7.0; <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> = 0.0004) and the 3D groups (151.5 ± 33.4 versus 211.7 ± 16.2; <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> = 0.0001). Similarly, there was a significant increase in the scores of IKT task for the 2D (123.9 ± 41.0 versus 373.3 ± 47.2; <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> = 0.003) and the 3D groups (122.9 ± 44.9 versus 338.8 ± 28.6; <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> = 0.0005). However, there was no significant difference in the final assessment scores between 2D and 3D groups for both tasks (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> > 0.05). Therefore, 3D laparoscopic systems do not provide an advantage over 2D systems for training novices in basic laparoscopic skills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".