PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S S McNatt

Publications and source records attributed to S S McNatt.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A computer-based laparoscopic skills assessment device differentiates experienced from novice laparoscopic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The acquisition of laparoscopic skills is difficult to assess. Previously, through the use of a computer-based skills assessment device (SAD), we have shown that assessments of the time needed to perform a task and graded observations of task performance overestimate the speed at which laparoscopic skills can be acquired. The aim of this study was to test the ability of a laparoscopic SAD to differentiate novices from experienced laparoscopic surgeons and thereby further validate its use in surgical education. METHODS: Using a laparoscopic simulator platform integrated with task simulation and data collection software (MIST VR), we tested both experienced and novice laparoscopists. Each group performed three tasks with a minimum of seven repetitions. The tasks consisted of target acquisition, target traversal, and target manipulation with diathermy. Within each task, time (T), errors (E), and economy of movement for each hand (EML, EMR) were assessed. Results were reported as mean +/- SEM, and comparisons were made using an independent samples t-test. RESULTS: For the target acquisition task, the expert group performed the task faster than the novice group (5.5 +/- 0.24 vs 7.6 +/- 0.40 sec, p < 0.05); the experts also made fewer errors (0.5 +/- 0.10 vs 0.8 +/- 0.11 errors, p < 0.05), and achieved both a better EML (1.8 +/- 0.6 vs 2.3 +/- 0.9, p < 0.05) and a better EMR (2.0 +/- 0.1 vs 2.9 +/- 0.21, p < 0.05). In the target traversal task, the experts made fewer errors than the novices (2.2 +/- 0.25 vs 4.6 +/- 0.38 errors, p < 0.05). For the manipulation and diathermy tasks, the expert group completed the task faster (30.8 +/- 1.5 vs 39 +/- 1.5 sec, p < 0.05), made fewer errors (5.3 +/- 0.59 vs 8.1 +/- 0.63 errors, p < 0.05), and had a better EML (6.0 +/- 0.37 vs 7.2 +/- 0.45, p < 0.05) and EMR (4.3 +/- 0.23 vs 5.8 +/- 0.36, p < 0.05) than the novices. CONCLUSION: A laparoscopic skills assessment device can discern levels of laparoscopic manipulative skill. This type of device can be used in surgical training to make objective assessments of the acquisition of laparoscopic skills.

Clinical Competence↗

Assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills.

BACKGROUND: The rapid emergence of laparoscopic surgery over the past decade has highlighted the need for teaching and assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills. Most analyses consist of a measurement of the time to complete a specified task and a subjective assessment by an observer. Objective assessments of accuracy in the performance of manipulative skills have been lacking. To quantify both speed and accuracy during laparoscopic skill performance, we have developed a skills assessment device (SAD) using a laparoscopic simulator platform and computer-based skills assessment software that precisely measures an instrument's movement during performance of timed laparoscopic manipulations. STUDY DESIGN: The SAD device measures the time necessary for an operator to complete a task, and the movements of the working end of laparoscopic instruments in three dimensions. Ten nonsurgeons performed 10 repetitions of a standardized laparoscopic manipulation. Data were captured in real time for both hands on a personal computer. Accuracy was determined by calculating the sum of all distances traveled. Duration was measured in seconds. Results are group means. RESULTS: The time necessary to perform defined laparoscopic manipulative skills improved dramatically during the first 3 repetitions and then stabilized. However, accuracy of manipulations continued to improve over all 10 repetitions. CONCLUSIONS: When untrained subjects are learning a laparoscopic manipulative task, measurement of time alone fails to account for the more protracted learning curve for accuracy. Therefore, devices and training programs that fail to consider objective assessments of accuracy may overestimate laparoscopic proficiency.

Clinical Competence↗