Premium
Development and validation of a porcine organ model for training in essential laparoscopic surgical skills
Author(s) -
Higuchi Madoka,
Abe Takashige,
Hotta Kiyohiko,
Morita Ken,
Miyata Haruka,
Furumido Jun,
Iwahara Naoya,
Kon Masafumi,
Osawa Takahiro,
Matsumoto Ryuji,
Kikuchi Hiroshi,
Kurashima Yo,
Murai Sachiyo,
Aydin Abdullatif,
Raison Nicholas,
Ahmed Kamran,
Khan Muhammad Shamim,
Dasgupta Prokar,
Shinohara Nobuo
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
international journal of urology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.172
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1442-2042
pISSN - 0919-8172
DOI - 10.1111/iju.14315
Subject(s) - workload , medicine , task (project management) , dissection (medical) , construct validity , laparoscopic surgery , test (biology) , laparoscopy , surgery , computer science , patient satisfaction , paleontology , management , biology , economics , operating system
Objectives To develop a wet laboratory training model for learning core laparoscopic surgical skills and evaluating learners’ competency level outside the operating room. Methods Participants completed three tasks (task 1: tissue dissection around the aorta; task 2: tissue dissection and division of the renal artery; task 3: renal parenchymal closure). Each performance was video recorded and subsequently evaluated by two experts, according to the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills and task‐specific metrics that we developed (Assessment Sheet of Laparoscopic Skills in Wet Lab score). Mean scores were used for analyses. The subjective mental workload was also assessed (NASA Task Load Index). Results The 54 participants included 32 urologists, eight young trainees and 14 medical students. A total of 13 participants were categorized as experts (≥50 laparoscopic surgeries), eight as intermediates (10–49) and 33 as novices (0–9). There were significant differences in the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills and Assessment Sheet of Laparoscopic Skills in Wet Lab scores among the three groups in all three tasks. Higher NASA Task Load Index scores were observed in novices, and there were significant differences in tasks 1 (Kruskal–Wallis test, P = 0.0004) and 2 ( P = 0.0002), and marginal differences in task 3 ( P = 0.0745) among the three groups. Conclusions Our training model has good construct validity, and differences in the NASA Task Load Index score reflect previous laparoscopic surgical experiences. Our findings show the ability to assess both laparoscopic surgical skills and mental workloads, which could help educators comprehend trainees’ level outside the operating room. Given the decreasing opportunity to carry out pure laparoscopic surgeries because of the dissemination of robotic surgery, especially in urology, our model can offer practical training opportunities.