Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2016

01-08-2016 | SAGES REVIEW ARTICLE

Surgical simulation: the value of individualization

Authors: Greta V. Bernier, Jaime E. Sanchez

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 8/2016

Login to get access

Excerpt

Surgical simulation programs have the potential to broadly benefit numerous healthcare stakeholders. Patients, hospital, and surgeons themselves all stand to gain, either directly or indirectly, from skills that can be learned and refined through simulation. This is especially true in communities with residencies and fellowships where proficiency of surgical technique remains in development for novice surgeons. With public pressure for increased oversight of surgeons in training, prevention of medical errors, reductions in health care costs and decreased work hours, current residents have a much different training experience today than in years past [1‐4]. Limited work hours have led to reduced exposure of surgical trainees to operative procedures and the ability to practice those associated technical skills [5]. Bridging this educational gap will become more important than ever as proficiency-based evaluation overtakes the traditional time-based model [6‐8]. Many now look to simulation as the possible solution for deficits emerging in current surgical training and as a way to improve patient safety and possibly overall costs. …
Literature
1.
Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson S, Institute of Medicine (IOM) (eds) (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington
2.
Dennis BM, Long EL, Zamperini KM, Nakayama DK (2013) The effect of the 16-hour intern workday restriction on surgical residents’ in-hospital activities. J Surg Educ 70(6):800–805CrossRefPubMed
3.
Antiel RM, Reed DA, Van Arendonk KJ et al (2013) Effects of duty hour restrictions on core competencies, education, quality of life and burnout among general surgery interns. JAMA Surg 148(5):448–455CrossRefPubMed
4.
Barden CB, Specht MC, McCarter MD et al (2002) Effects of limited work hours on surgical training. JACS 195(4):531–538
5.
Sadaba JR, Urso S (2011) Does the introduction of duty-hour restriction in the United States negatively affect the operative volume of surgical trainees? Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 13(3):316–319CrossRefPubMed
6.
Willis RE, Richa J, Oppelz R et al (2012) Comparing three pedagogical approaches to psychomotor skills acquisition. Am J Surg 203(1):8–13CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ, Fried GM et al (2014) Fundamentals of endoscopic surgery: creation and validation of the hands-on test. Surg Endosc 28(3):704–711CrossRefPubMed
9.
Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA et al (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236:458–464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Babineau TJ, Becker J, Gibbons G et al (2004) The “cost” of operative training for surgical residents. Arch Surg 139:366–370CrossRefPubMed
11.
Bridges M, Diamond DL (1999) The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. Am J Surg 177(1):28–32CrossRefPubMed
12.
Park KW, Dickerson C (2009) Can efficient supply management in the operating room save millions? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 22:242–248CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cohen ER, Feinglass J, Barsuk JH et al (2010) Cost savings from reduced catheter-related bloodstream infection after simulation-based education for residents in a medical intensive care unit. Simul Healthc 5(2):98–102CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
16.
Cox T, Seymour N, Stefanidis D (2015) Moving the needle: simulation’s impact on patient outcomes. Surg Clin N Am 95:827–838CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zendejas B, Cook DA, Bingener J et al (2011) Simulation-based mastery learning improves patient outcomes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Ann Surg 254:502–511CrossRefPubMed
18.
Henry B, Clark P, Sudan R (2014) Cost and logistics of implementing a tissue-based American College of Surgeons/Association of Program Directors in Surgery surgical skills curriculum for general surgery residents of all clinical years. Am J Surg 207(2):201–208CrossRefPubMed
19.
Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L (2012) The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Med Educ 46:636–647CrossRefPubMed
20.
Forse RA, Bramble JD, McQuillan R (2011) Team training can improve operating room performance. Surgery 150(4):771–778CrossRef
21.
Kapadia MR, Darosa DA, Macrae HM et al (2007) Current assessment and future directions of surgical skills laboratories. J Surg Educ 64(5):260–265CrossRefPubMed
22.
Gould JC (2006) Building a laparoscopic surgical skills training laboratory: resources and support. JSLS 10(3):293–296PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Anastakis DJ, Regehr G, Reznick RK et al (1999) Assessment of technical skills transfer from the bench training model to the human model. Am J Surg 177(2):167–170CrossRefPubMed
24.
Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR et al (2004) The educational impact of bench model fidelity on the acquisition of technical skill: the use of clinically relevant outcome measures. Ann Surg 240(2):374–381CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Munz V, Kumar BD, Moorthy K et al (2004) Laparoscopic virtual reality and box trainers. Surg Endosc 18:484–494CrossRef
26.
Madan AK, Frantzides CT (2007) Substituting virtual reality trainers for inanimate box trainers does not decrease laparoscopic skills acquisition. JSLS 11(1):87–89PubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Datta V, Chang A, Mackay S et al (2002) The relationship between motion analysis and surgical technical assessments. Am J Surg 184:70–73CrossRefPubMed
28.
Sidhu RS, Park J, Brydges R et al (2007) Laboratory-based vascular anastomosis training: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of bench model fidelity and level of training on skill acquisition. J Vasc Surg 45(2):343–349CrossRefPubMed
29.
Gomez PP, Willis RE, Van Sickle K. Evaluation of two flexible colonoscopy simulators and transfer of skills into clinical practice
30.
31.
Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J et al (1999) Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a preliminary assessment of minimally invasive surgical trainer virtual reality (MIST VR). Endoscopy 31(4):310–313CrossRefPubMed
32.
Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA et al (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236(4):458–464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP et al (2009) Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 338:b1802CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Mann T, Gillinder L, Szold A (2014) The use of virtual reality simulation to determine potential for endoscopic surgery skill acquisition. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 23(4):190–197CrossRefPubMed
35.
Shanmugan S, Leblanc F, Senagore A et al (2014) Virtual reality simulator training for laparoscopic colectomy: what metrics have construct validity? Dis Colon Rectum 57(2):210–214CrossRefPubMed
36.
Seixas-mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathverravalli G et al (2010) Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology 76:357–360CrossRefPubMed
37.
Seixas-mikelus S, Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T et al (2011) Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int 107:1130–1135CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Raza SJ, Froghi S, Chowriappa A et al (2014) Construct validation of the key components of fundamental skills of robotic surgery (FSRS) curriculum—a multi-institution prospective study. J Surg Educ 71:316–324CrossRefPubMed
40.
Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Syed JR et al (2013) Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology 81:767–774CrossRefPubMed
41.
Kenney P, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ et al (2009) Face, content and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 73:1288–1292CrossRefPubMed
42.
Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N et al (2012) The virtual reality simulator dV-trainer is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26:2587–2593CrossRefPubMed
43.
Connolly M, Seligman J, Kastenmeier A et al (2014) Validation of a virtual reality-based robotic surgical skills curriculum. Surg Endosc 28:1691–1694CrossRefPubMed
44.
Poulose BK, Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ et al (2014) Fundamentals of endoscopic surgery cognitive examination: development and validity evidence. Surg Endosc 28(2):631–638CrossRefPubMed
45.
46.
Mueller CL, Kaneva P, Fried GM, Mellinger JD, Marks JM, Dunkin BJ, van Sickle K, Vassiliou MC (2016) Validity evidence for a new portable, lower-cost platform for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery skills test. Surg Endosc 30(3):1107–1112. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-015-4307-6 CrossRefPubMed
47.
Marshall RL, Smith JS, Gorman PJ et al (2001) Use of a human patient simulator in the development of resident trauma management skills. J Trauma 51(1):17–21CrossRefPubMed
48.
Block EF, Lottenberg L, Flint L et al (2002) Use of a human patient simulator for the advanced trauma life support course. Am Surg 68(7):648–651PubMed
Metadata
Title
Surgical simulation: the value of individualization
Authors
Greta V. Bernier
Jaime E. Sanchez
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5021-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2016 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Multi-institutional outcomes using magnetic sphincter augmentation versus Nissen fundoplication for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease

OriginalPaper

Total laparoscopic resection for advanced gastric cancer is safe and feasible in the Western population

OriginalPaper

Multidisciplinary treatment of T1a adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus: contemporary comparison of endoscopic and surgical treatment in physiologically fit patients

OriginalPaper

Applicability of laparoscopic approach to the resection of large adrenal tumours: a retrospective cohort study on 200 patients

OriginalPaper

Evaluating tactile feedback in robotic surgery for potential clinical application using an animal model

OriginalPaper

Sutureless onlay hernia repair: a review of 97 patients