Randomized comparison of the portable laparoscopic trainer to a standardized trainer

Fox, Joe

dc.contributor.author	Fox, Joe
dc.date.accessioned	2013-04-12T22:12:58Z
dc.date.available	2013-04-12T22:12:58Z
dc.date.issued	2013-04-12
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10150/281176
dc.description	A Thesis submitted to The University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Medicine.	en
dc.description.abstract	PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the portable laparoscopic trainer in improving skills in novice subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine medical students with no prior surgical experience were recruited and given a pretest of three tasks on a standardized laparoscopic trainer. Subjects were evaluated objectively and subjectively. Fifteen subjects were randomized to receive a portable laparoscopic trainer and 14 subjects were assigned to the standardized laparoscopic trainers at our facility. The portable trainer group was advised but not required to complete at least 3 hours of training. The group at the facility had a proctored 1-hour session each week for 3 weeks. Each subject was then retested and evaluated with the same pretest tasks. Objective and subjective improvements between the groups were compared. HYPOTHESIS: Both the portable and standardized trainer groups were expected to improve comparably based on objective and subjective measures. The portable group had a theoretical objective advantage due to unlimited practice time and the standardized group had the advantage of proctored training sessions, thought to increase subjective performance. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and pretest scores were similar between both groups. All students in the facility group completed the three 1-hour proctored sessions. The portable trainer group reported an average 204 minutes of practice. Objectively, the facility group did better on the post-test in overall time, and in two exercises. Subjectively, the facility group had a significant improvement compared with the portable trainer group (4.6 versus 2.4 point average increase, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both groups showed objective and subjective improvement after a 3-week period of training. The portable trainer group did report longer average practice time, but this made no significant difference in subjective or objective improvement. The portable laparoscopic trainer is an effective method for improvement of basic inferior compared to proctored sessions on a standard trainer.
dc.language.iso	en_US	en
dc.publisher	The University of Arizona.	en_US
dc.rights	Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the College of Medicine - Phoenix, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Laparoscopy	en
dc.subject.mesh	Education, Medical	en
dc.title	Randomized comparison of the portable laparoscopic trainer to a standardized trainer	en_US
dc.type	text; Electronic Thesis	en
dc.contributor.department	The University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix	en
dc.description.collectioninformation	This item is part of the College of Medicine - Phoenix Scholarly Projects 2013 collection. For more information, contact the Phoenix Biomedical Campus Library at pbc-library@email.arizona.edu.	en_US
dc.contributor.mentor	Castle, Erik	en
refterms.dateFOA	2018-06-05T19:54:03Z
html.description.abstract	PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the portable laparoscopic trainer in improving skills in novice subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine medical students with no prior surgical experience were recruited and given a pretest of three tasks on a standardized laparoscopic trainer. Subjects were evaluated objectively and subjectively. Fifteen subjects were randomized to receive a portable laparoscopic trainer and 14 subjects were assigned to the standardized laparoscopic trainers at our facility. The portable trainer group was advised but not required to complete at least 3 hours of training. The group at the facility had a proctored 1-hour session each week for 3 weeks. Each subject was then retested and evaluated with the same pretest tasks. Objective and subjective improvements between the groups were compared. HYPOTHESIS: Both the portable and standardized trainer groups were expected to improve comparably based on objective and subjective measures. The portable group had a theoretical objective advantage due to unlimited practice time and the standardized group had the advantage of proctored training sessions, thought to increase subjective performance. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and pretest scores were similar between both groups. All students in the facility group completed the three 1-hour proctored sessions. The portable trainer group reported an average 204 minutes of practice. Objectively, the facility group did better on the post-test in overall time, and in two exercises. Subjectively, the facility group had a significant improvement compared with the portable trainer group (4.6 versus 2.4 point average increase, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both groups showed objective and subjective improvement after a 3-week period of training. The portable trainer group did report longer average practice time, but this made no significant difference in subjective or objective improvement. The portable laparoscopic trainer is an effective method for improvement of basic inferior compared to proctored sessions on a standard trainer.