Use of box simulators for improving intraoperative laparoscopic skills - an essential tool for the surgeon in training

To compare the improvement of intraoperative laparoscopic skills by measuring GOALS score between residents who have undergone simulator training with those who have not received any simulator training. A randomized controlled trial. Department of Surgery, Services Hospital, Lahore, from August 2013...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan 2015-03, Vol.25 (3), p.172-175
Hauptverfasser: Malik, Awais Amjad, Ayyaz, Mahmood, Afzal, Muhammad Farooq, Ali, Abrar Ashraf, Shamim, Romaisa, Khan, Ruqayya, Khan, Huma Sabir, Naeem, Awais, Bhatti, Samiullah
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To compare the improvement of intraoperative laparoscopic skills by measuring GOALS score between residents who have undergone simulator training with those who have not received any simulator training. A randomized controlled trial. Department of Surgery, Services Hospital, Lahore, from August 2013 to February 2014. Thirty residents belonging to year 1, 2 and 3 were included in the study. They were randomly divided into 2 groups. Both groups had a baseline evaluation with GOALS score while performing dissection of gallbladder from liver bed during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Group-A underwent formal training on simulators whereas group-B did not receive any formal training on simulators. After 6 months, a repeat evaluation was done again by measuring GOALS score while performing gallbladder dissection. Baseline GOALS scores of both the groups were similar. Group-A baseline score was 7.66 ± 0.93 and group-B score was 7.46 ± 1.04 (p = 0.585). However repeat scores for group-A showed a significant improvement (an increase of 7.16 ± 1.48 to 14.76 ± 1.67, p < 0.001) from baseline scores. Residents in group-B improved their scores by 2.30 ± 0.99 to 9.76 ± 0.79 (p < 0.001). When inter group comparison was done the second score of group-A was significantly higher than that of group-B (14.76 ± 1.67 vs. 9.76 ± 0.79, p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability was moderately significant (Kappa 0.540).
ISSN:1022-386X
1681-7168