4.7 Article

Prospective, Randomized Assessment of the Acquisition, Maintenance, and Loss of Laparoscopic Skills

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 256, 期 2, 页码 387-393

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318251f3d2

关键词

laparoscopic skills; skill acquisition; surgical skills loss; virtual reality; simulation

类别

资金

  1. European Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Laparoscopic skills are difficult to learn. We, therefore, assessed the factors involved in skill acquisition, maintenance, and loss in 2 prospective, randomized studies. Methods: In study 1, 24 laparoscopic novices were randomly assigned to a control condition who performed the laparoscopic assessment task; Massed condition who trained on virtual reality (VR) simulation during 1 day or Interval condition who had the same amount of VR training distributed over 3 consecutive days. All groups also completed a novel laparoscopic box-trainer task on 5 consecutive days. In study 2, 16 laparoscopic novices were randomly assigned to a Practice or a No-practice condition. All subjects were required to train on a VR simulation curriculum for the same duration and skill attainment level. The week after completion of training, subjects in the Practice condition were allowed 1 complete practice trial on the simulator. Both groups completed the same tasks 2 weeks after completion of the training. Results: In study 1, the Interval trained group showed the fastest rate of learning and on completion of training significantly outperformed both the Massed and Control groups (P < 0.0001). In study 2, both groups showed significant skills improvement from training trial T1 to T3 (P < 0.0001). The subjects in the Practice group maintained or improved their skills at 1 week but those in the No practice group showed significant decline of skills at 2 weeks after training completion (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Laparoscopic skills are optimally acquired on an Interval training schedule. They significantly decline with 2 weeks of nonuse.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据