Skip to main content
Log in

Risikobewusstsein und Training zur Prävention von Komplikationen in der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie

Risk awareness and training for prevention of complications in minimally invasive surgery

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die minimal-invasive Chirurgie (MIC) fordert vom Chirurgen im Vergleich zur offenen Chirurgie zusätzliches Geschick und Fähigkeiten. Die indirekte Kamerasicht, fehlende dreidimensionale Sicht, mangelndes Gewebegefühl sowie die schwierige Instrumentenkoordination mit Drehpunkt- und Hebeleffekt führen zu einer verlängerten Lernkurve. Das resultierende höhere Risiko zur Entstehung von Komplikationen bedingt ein spezielles Risikobewusstsein. Ein Training der speziellen Fähigkeiten für die Laparoskopie außerhalb des Operationssaales scheint notwendig, um die Sicherheit der Patienten zu optimieren und die mit der Lernkurve einhergehenden Komplikationsrisiken zu minimieren.

Ergebnisse und Diskussion

Die Trainingsmodalitäten für die laparoskopische Chirurgie beinhalten Box-Trainer, Computersimulatoren mit virtueller Realität, künstliche und Kadaverorgane sowie Lebendtiermodelle und Kadavermodelle. Diese Trainingsmodalitäten haben einen in Studien bewiesenen Einfluss auf die Lernkurve der laparoskopischen Fähigkeiten sowie auf die Qualität der Durchführung von Operationen und die Vermeidung von Komplikationen. Das Laparoskopietraining spielt eine immer wichtigere Rolle in der Akkreditierung und fachlichen Anerkennung. In einigen Ländern wurden laparoskopische Trainingskurse vor dem ersten Einsatz im Operationssaal am Patienten bereits verpflichtend eingeführt. Zukünftige Studien werden die optimale Zusammensetzung multimodaler Trainingskurrikula untersuchen und individualisierte Trainee- und patientenspezifische Trainingsansätze entwickeln. Neue technische Entwicklungen werden die Kollektion und Weitergabe von Erfahrung und Können zwischen den Generationen und Schulen der Chirurgie vereinfachen, um letztlich die Behandlung der Patienten in der Chirurgie so sicher und schonend wie möglich zu gestalten.

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive surgery (MIC) requires surgeons to have a different set of skills and capabilities from that of open surgery. The indirect camera view, lack of a three-dimensional view, restricted haptic feedback with lack of tissue feeling and difficult instrument coordination with fulcrum and pivoting effects result in an additional learning curve compared to open surgery. The prolonged learning curve leads to a higher risk of complications and special awareness of these risks is therefore mandatory. Training of special laparoscopic skills outside the operating room is needed to optimize patient outcome and to minimize the ocurrence of complications related to the learning curve.

Results and discussion

Training modalities for laparoscopic surgery include simple box trainers, computer simulation with virtual reality, the use of artificial and cadaver organs, as well as live animal models and cadaver training. These training modalities have been proven in studies to have a beneficial effect on the learning curve for acquisition of laparoscopic skills and for improving operative performance as well as avoidance of complications. Laparoscopic training is currently gaining a more and more important role for official education and accreditation purposes. In some countries the participation in laparoscopic training courses has become mandatory prior to participation in laparoscopic operations. Future research will include the optimization of multimodal training curricula, the development of individualized training approaches that allow both trainee and patient-specific preparation, as well as the use of novel devices to facilitate the collection and transfer of expertise between the generations and schools of surgeons.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Butler N, Collins S, Memon B, Memon MA (2011) Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: current status and future direction. Surg Endosc 25:2071–2083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siech M, Bartsch D, Beger HG, Benz S, Bergmann U, Busch P, Fernandez-Cruz L, Hopt U, Keck T, Musholt TJ, Roblick UJ, Steinmuller L, Strauss P, Strik M, Werner J, Huschitt S (2012) [Indications for laparoscopic pancreas operations: results of a consensus conference and the previous laparoscopic pancreas register]. Chirurg 83:247–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aggarwal R, Mytton OT, Derbrew M, Hananel D, Heydenburg M, Issenberg B, MacAulay C, Mancini ME, Morimoto T, Soper N, Ziv A, Reznick R (2010) Training and simulation for patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 19(Suppl 2):i34–i43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahmad G, Duffy JM, Phillips K, Watson A (2008) Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16:CD006583

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fuchshuber PR, Robinson TN, Feldman LS, Brunt LM, Madani A, Jones SB, Rozner MA, Munro MG, Mishna J, Schwaitzberg SD, Jones DB (2015) Fundamental use of surgical energy (FUSE): closing a gap in medical education. Ann Surg 262:20–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Klarenbeek BR, Veenhof AA, Bergamaschi R, van der Peet DL, van den Broek WT, de Lange ES, Bemelman WA, Heres P, Lacy AM, Engel AF, Cuesta MA (2009) Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis decreases major morbidity rates: a randomized control trial: short-term results of the Sigma Trial. Ann Surg 249:39–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Siddiqui MR, Sajid MS, Qureshi S, Cheek E, Baig MK (2010) Elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has fewer complications than conventional surgery: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg 200:144–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20:CD003145

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lei QC, Wang XY, Zheng HZ, Xia XF, Bi JC, Gao XJ, Li N (2015) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection within fast track programs: an update meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. J Clin Med Res 7:594–601

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Srinivasa S, Bissett IP, Hill AG (2011) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with a higher intraoperative complication rate than open surgery. Ann Surg 253:35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hamad GG, Curet M (2010) Minimally invasive surgery. Am J Surg 199:263–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Flum DR (2013) Intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy. JAMA 310:2672–2673

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sturm LP, Windsor JA, Cosman PH, Cregan P, Hewett PJ, Maddern GJ (2008) A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Ann Surg 248:166–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nagendran M, Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Loizidou M, Davidson BR (2013) Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD006575

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Simorov A, Shaligram A, Shostrom V, Boilesen E, Thompson J, Oleynikov D (2012) Laparoscopic colon resection trends in utilization and rate of conversion to open procedure: a national database review of academic medical centers. Ann Surg 256:462–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, Oerline M, Carlin AM, Nunn AR, Dimick J, Banerjee M, Birkmeyer NJ (2013) Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 369:1434–1442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sanchez-Santos R, Estevez S, Tome C, Gonzalez S, Brox A, Nicolas R, Crego R, Pinon M, Masdevall C, Torres A (2012) Training programs influence in the learning curve of laparoscopic gastric bypass for morbid obesity: a systematic review. Obes Surg 22:34–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. See WA, Cooper CS, Fisher RJ (1993) Predictors of laparoscopic complications after formal training in laparoscopic surgery. JAMA 270:2689–2692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zendejas B, Cook DA, Bingener J, Huebner M, Dunn WF, Sarr MG, Farley DR (2011) Simulation-based mastery learning improves patient outcomes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 254:502–509. (discussion 509–511)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bishawi M, Pryor AD (2014) Should technical aptitude evaluation become part of resident selection for surgical residency? Surg Endosc 28:2761–2762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (Hrsg) (2000) To Err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington (DC)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Babineau TJ, Becker J, Gibbons G, Sentovich S, Hess D, Robertson S, Stone M (2004) The „cost“ of operative training for surgical residents. Archives of surgery 139:366–369. (discussion 369–370)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, Hedman L, Hogman C, McClusky DA 3rd, Ramel S, Smith CD, Arvidsson D (2007) Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am J Surg 193:797–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McKinley SK, Brunt LM, Schwaitzberg SD (2014) Prevention of bile duct injury: the case for incorporating educational theories of expertise. Surg Endosc 28:3385–3391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nagendran M, Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Loizidou M, Davidson BR (2013) Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD006575

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nagendran M, Toon CD, Davidson BR, Gurusamy KS (2014) Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD010479

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schulman KA, Kim JJ (2000) Medical errors: how the US Government is addressing the problem. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 1:35–37

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nickel F, Bintintan VV, Gehrig T, Kenngott HG, Fischer L, Gutt CN, Muller-Stich BP (2013) Virtual reality does not meet expectations in a pilot study on multimodal laparoscopic surgery training. World J Surg 37:965–973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van Hove PD, Tuijthof GJ, Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, Dankelman J (2010) Objective assessment of technical surgical skills. Br J Surg 97:972–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pape-Koehler C, Immenroth M, Sauerland S, Lefering R, Lindlohr C, Toaspern J, Heiss M (2013) Multimedia-based training on Internet platforms improves surgical performance: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 27:1737–1747

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nickel F, Jede F, Minassian A, Gondan M, Hendrie JD, Gehrig T, Linke GR, Kadmon M, Fischer L, Muller-Stich BP (2014) One or two trainees per workplace in a structured multimodality training curriculum for laparoscopic surgery? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial - DRKS00004675. Trials 15:137

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nickel F, Brzoska JA, Gondan M, Rangnick HM, Chu J, Kenngott HG, Linke GR, Kadmon M, Fischer L, Muller-Stich BP (2015) Virtual reality training versus blended learning of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial with laparoscopic novices. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sugand K, Mawkin M, Gupte C (2015) Validating touch surgery: a cognitive task simulation and rehearsal app for intramedullary femoral nailing. Injury. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.013

  34. Gurusamy KS, Nagendran M, Toon CD, Davidson BR (2014) Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with limited prior laparoscopic experience. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD010478

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236:458–463. (discussion 463–454)

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cox T, Seymour N, Stefanidis D (2015) Moving the needle: simulation’s impact on patient outcomes. Surg Clin North Am 95:827–838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Seymour NE (2008) VR to OR: a review of the evidence that virtual reality simulation improves operating room performance. World J Surg 32:182–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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 

  39. Mackenzie H, Ni M, Miskovic D, Motson RW, Gudgeon M, Khan Z, Longman R, Coleman MG, Hanna GB (2015) Clinical validity of consultant technical skills assessment in the English National Training Programme for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Br J Surg 102:991–997

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Miskovic D, Wyles SM, Carter F, Coleman MG, Hanna GB (2011) Development, validation and implementation of a monitoring tool for training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the English National Training Program. Surg Endosc 25:1136–1142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ni M, Mackenzie H, Widdison A, Jenkins JT, Mansfield S, Dixon T, Slade D, Coleman MG, Hanna GB (2015) What errors make a laparoscopic cancer surgery unsafe? An ad hoc analysis of competency assessment in the National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England. Surg Endosc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26099620 [Epub ahead of print]

  42. Ali MR, Tichansky DS, Kothari SN, McBride CL, Fernandez AZ Jr, Sugerman HJ, Kellum JM, Wolfe LG, DeMaria EJ (2010) Validation that a 1-year fellowship in minimally invasive and bariatric surgery can eliminate the learning curve for laparoscopic gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 24:138–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Brunt LM (2014) Celebrating a decade of innovation in surgical education. Bull Am Coll Surg 99:10–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Giannotti D, Patrizi G, Casella G, Di Rocco G, Marchetti M, Frezzotti F, Bernieri MG, Vestri AR, Redler A (2014) Can virtual reality simulators be a certification tool for bariatric surgeons? Surg Endosc 28:242–248

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kadmon M, Busemann A, Euteneier A, Gawad K, Grone J, Berberat P (2012) [Modular postgraduate training in surgery - a national concept with future]. Zentralbl Chir 137:138–143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Saeger HD, Kersting S, Vogelbach P, Hamel C, Oertli D, Holscher A, Thomas WE (2010) [Course system of the Working Group for Gastro-intestinal Surgery Davos]. Chirurg 81:25–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kenngott HG, Wunscher JJ, Wagner M, Preukschas A, Wekerle AL, Neher P, Suwelack S, Speidel S, Nickel F, Oladokun D, Maier-Hein L, Dillmann R, Meinzer HP, Muller-Stich BP (2015) OpenHELP (Heidelberg laparoscopy phantom): development of an open-source surgical evaluation and training tool. Surg Endosc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25673345 [Epub ahead of print]

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B.P. Müller-Stich.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

F. Nickel, K.-F. Kowalewski und B.P. Müller-Stich geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nickel, F., Kowalewski, KF. & Müller-Stich, B. Risikobewusstsein und Training zur Prävention von Komplikationen in der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie. Chirurg 86, 1121–1127 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-015-0097-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-015-0097-6

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation