MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206705770 · doi:10.1097/gh9.0000000000000059

Evaluation and usability study of low-cost laparoscopic box trainer “Lap-Pack”: a 2-stage multicenter cohort study

2021· article· en· W4206705770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manish Chauhan, Riya Sawhney, Carolina F. Da Silva, Noel Aruparayil, Jesudian Gnanaraj, Sukumar Maiti, Anurag Mishra, Aaron Quyn, William Bolton, Josh Burke, David Jayne, Pietro Valdastri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery Global Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityMedicineFace validityPhysical therapyTrainerConfidence intervalCohortComputer sciencePsychometricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Laparoscopic training is restricted in low resource settings due to limited access to specialist training equipment and financial constraints. This study aimed to evaluate simulation skills and usability of an original low-cost laparoscopic trainer, the “Lap-Pack,” developed at the University of Leeds, UK. Methods: Stage I evaluation was conducted in Kolkata (India) between March, 12 and 14, 2019. Laparoscopic simulation training was based on the 5 domains of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS), which assessed skill acquisition across 7 rural surgeons from North-East India. The McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS) criteria was used to statistically analyze trainee performance between pretraining and posttraining sessions. Also, Lap-Pack was qualitatively compared with a commercial box trainer, Inovus Pyxus HD (IPHD). Stage II involved a multi-center usability study in 2 centers of India and the United Kingdom (2019). Seventy-eight participants performed 2 FLS tasks using Lap-Pack and provided scores on a 25-point questionnaire, including a preestablished Face-Validity Criteria and 4 evaluation categories—Usability, Camera, View, and, Material. Results: In stage I, the total posttraining MISTELS score for Lap-Pack was higher, that is 773.37 (SD: 183.67) than pretraining score, that is 351.2 (SD: 471.5). The posttraining scores showed laparoscopic skill acquisition with statistically significant ( P <0.05) difference for precision cutting, intracorporeal and extracorporeal knot. In stage II, Lap-Pack scored highly in Face-Validity with a combined mean score of 4.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.52–5.09, P <0.05] out of a possible 6. It scored highest (scale: 1=low to 7=high) in Usability 6.14 (95% CI: 6.05–6.22, P <0.05) and Camera 6.14 (95% CI: 6.01–6.27, P <0.05). The “Lightweight” (6.46, 95% CI: 6.32–6.60, P <0.05) and “Portability” (6.35, 95% CI: 6.18–6.51, P <0.05) features of Lap-Pack were appreciated. Conclusion: The Lap-Pack is a suitable low fidelity simulator for laparoscopic training in a low-resource setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Surgery Global HealthSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207