Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tailored instructor feedback leads to more effective virtual-reality laparoscopic training

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic novices begin at different performance levels, and studies on tailored training concepts are warranted. The effect of verbal instructor feedback has been investigated with varying results, and its effectiveness in virtual-reality laparoscopic (VRL) simulations still is unclear. This study aimed to determine whether laparoscopic novices with lower initial performance statuses may profit from training with intensive instructor feedback.

Methods

A prospective, single-blinded study was performed within a week-long curricular course. In this study, 20 medical students performed a complex bimanual maneuver on a VRL simulator. There was a division in performance levels, with a high-performer group (HPG) that received a better median score and a low-performer group (LPG). During the training phase, only the initial LPG received standardized instructor feedback in a one-to-one setting. The final assessment of skills for both groups involved performing the task without feedback at the end of the course.

Results

The HPG and LPG showed significantly different initial performance levels according global and categorized (time, economics, error) scores (p < 0.005). This difference disappeared quickly throughout the instructor feedback phase. The final assessment demonstrated that both groups were at the same level of performance.

Conclusion

This is the first study to use a tailored training concept with instructor feedback limited to the LPG. The tailored training was effective and economic for the laparoscopic novices and their teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grantcharov TP, Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Rosenberg J (2003) Learning curves and impact of previous operative experience on performance on a virtual reality simulator to test laparoscopic surgical skills. Am J Surg 185:146–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, Davidson BR (2009) Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD006575

  3. Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP, Dalsgaard T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, Schroeder TV, Ottesen BS (2009) Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 338:b1802

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Satava RM (1993) Virtual reality surgical simulator: the first steps. Surg Endosc 7:203–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Grantcharov TP, Funch-Jensen P (2009) Can everyone achieve proficiency with the laparoscopic technique? Learning curve patterns in technical skills acquisition. Am J Surg 197:447–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Paschold M, Niebisch S, Kronfeld K, Herzer M, Lang H, Kneist W (2013) Cold-start capability in virtual-reality laparoscopic camera navigation: a base for tailored training in undergraduates. Surg Endosc 27(6):2169–2177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Paschold M, Schroder M, Kauff DW, Gorbauch T, Herzer M, Lang H, Kneist W (2011) Virtual reality laparoscopy: which potential trainee starts with a higher proficiency level? Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6:653–662

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Halvorsen FH, Fosse E, Mjaland O (2011) Unsupervised virtual reality training may not increase laparoscopic suturing skills. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21:458–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonrath EM, Fritz M, Mees ST, Weber BK, Grantcharov TP, Senninger N, Rijcken E (2013) Laparoscopic simulation training: does timing impact the quality of skills acquisition? Surg Endosc 27:888–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Palter VN (2011) Comprehensive training curricula for minimally invasive surgery. J Grad Med Educ 3:293–298

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zendejas B, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, Cook DA (2013) State of the evidence on simulation-based training for laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg 257:586–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vapenstad C, Buzink SN (2013) Procedural virtual reality simulation in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 27:364–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Snyder CW, Vandromme MJ, Tyra SL, Hawn MT (2009) Proficiency-based laparoscopic and endoscopic training with virtual reality simulators: a comparison of proctored and independent approaches. J Surg Educ 66:201–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Strandbygaard J, Bjerrum F, Maagaard M, Winkel P, Larsen CR, Ringsted C, Gluud C, Grantcharov T, Ottesen B, Sorensen JL (2013) Instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 257:839–844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Heniford BT, Scott DJ (2007) Limited feedback and video tutorials optimize learning and resource utilization during laparoscopic simulator training. Surgery 142:202–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Connor A, Schwaitzberg SD, Cao CG (2008) How much feedback is necessary for learning to suture? Surg Endosc 22:1614–1619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosser JC Jr, Colsant BJ, Lynch PJ, Herman B, Klonsky J, Young SM (2006) The use of a “hybrid” trainer in an established laparoscopic skills program. JSLS 10:4–10

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boyle E, Al-Akash M, Gallagher AG, Traynor O, Hill AD, Neary PC (2011) Optimising surgical training: use of feedback to reduce errors during a simulated surgical procedure. Postgrad Med J 87:524–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

M. Paschold, T. Huber, S. R. Zeißig, H. Lang, and W. Kneist have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, University Medicine of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    M. Paschold, T. Huber, H. Lang & Werner Kneist

  2. Institute of Medical Biometry, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI) of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany

    S. R. Zeißig

Authors
  1. M. Paschold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. R. Zeißig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Werner Kneist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Werner Kneist.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paschold, M., Huber, T., Zeißig, S.R. et al. Tailored instructor feedback leads to more effective virtual-reality laparoscopic training. Surg Endosc 28, 967–973 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3258-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3258-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation