Performance variability during training on simulators is associated with skill transfer

Use of Stroboscopic Goggles in Suture Training Improves Precision and Accuracy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to quantify the impact of intermittent visual occlusion via stroboscopic goggles on suture accuracy and precision.

METHODS

This crossover study recruited and randomized 72 graduate students to train with stroboscopic goggles early or late in structured suture practice. Participants completed assessments of 10 running sutures with 2 training sessions between baseline and follow-up assessments. The procedure was repeated after crossover. Suture photos were analyzed using ImageJ. Total error among all measurements represented accuracy; standard deviation of error represented precision. Intra- and inter-group trends were identified with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

RESULTS

Both groups significantly improved in accuracy in the sessions immediately following goggle use, but the group that used goggles later in training continued improving in accuracy and precision while the group that trained with stroboscopic goggles early plateaued.

CONCLUSIONS

Using stroboscopic goggles showed quantifiable benefit for augmenting suture training with greatest effect after initial skill acquisition is completed.

A spaced retraining schedule with 2-day interval improves the acquisition and retention of simulation-based basic arthroscopic skills

PURPOSE

To compare the effect of three differently spaced retraining schedules (1-day, 2-day, and 1-week intervals) on the acquisition of basic arthroscopic skills and skill retention after 3 months.

METHODS

Thirty orthopaedic residents without arthroscopic experience were enrolled in a double-blind, randomised, parallel-controlled trial. Spaced retaining schedules were divided into massed training and retraining phases. Participants were required to obtain perfect scores in all tasks on the simulator in the massed training phase, followed by a pretest to evaluate the training effect. During the retraining phase, participants were randomly assigned to Groups A (1-day interval), B (2-day interval) or C (1-week interval). A posttest was used to evaluate the effect of different retraining patterns. Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after the completion of spaced retraining schedules to measure skill retention. One-way ANOVA and paired-sample t tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Significant between-group differences in diagnostic arthroscopy (137.0 ± 24.8 vs. 140.1 ± 21.3 vs. 175.3 ± 27.4 s, P(A-C) = 0.005, P(B-C) = 0.010) and loose body removal (193.1 ± 33.9 vs. 182.0 ± 32.1 vs. 228.7 ± 42.9 s, P(B-C) = 0.025) completion times were observed. No significant differences were found in other posttest metrics. An assessment of skill retention after the 3-month follow-up (Evaluation 3) showed significant differences in diagnostic arthroscopy completion time (202.5 ± 53.3 vs. 172.0 ± 27.2 vs. 225.5 ± 42.1 s, P(B-C) = 0.026). No significant differences were found in other Evaluation 3 metrics.

CONCLUSION

The 2-day retraining schedule was the most effective for the acquisition and retention of basic arthroscopic skills and could be integrated into arthroscopic skills curricula. After a 3-month follow-up, residents who followed this schedule showed better skill retention than those who followed the 1-week interval schedule.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Transfer of virtual reality endoscopy training to live animal colonoscopy: a randomized control trial of proficiency vs. repetition-based training

BACKGROUND

Low first-time pass rates of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) exam stimulated development of virtual reality (VR) simulation curricula for test preparation. This study evaluates the transfer of VR endoscopy training to live porcine endoscopy performance and compares the relative effectiveness of a proficiency-based vs repetition-based VR training curriculum.

METHODS

Novice endoscopists completed pretesting including the FES manual skills examination and Global Assessment of GI Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) assessment of porcine upper and lower endoscopy. Participants were randomly assigned one of two curricula: proficiency-based or repetition-based. Following curriculum completion, participants post-tested via repeat FES examination and GAGES porcine endoscopy assessments. The two cohorts pre-to-post-test differences were compared using ANCOVA.

RESULTS

Twenty-two residents completed the curricula. There were no differences in demographics or clinical endoscopy experience between the groups. The repetition group spent significantly more time on the simulator (repetition: 242.2 min, SD 48.6) compared to the proficiency group (proficiency: 170.0 min, SD 66.3; p = 0.013). There was a significant improvement in porcine endoscopy (pre: 10.6, SD 2.8, post: 16.6, SD 3.4; p < 0.001) and colonoscopy (pre: 10.4, SD 2.7, post: 16.4, SD 4.2; p < 0.001) GAGES scores as well as FES manual skills performance (pre: 270.9, SD 105.5, post: 477.4, SD 68.9; p < 0.001) for the total cohort. There was no difference in post-test GAGES performance or FES manual skills exam performance between the two groups. Both the proficiency and repetition group had a 100% pass rate on the FES skills exam following VR curriculum completion.

CONCLUSION

A VR endoscopy curriculum translates to improved performance in upper and lower endoscopy in a live animal model. VR curricula type did not affect FES manual skills examination or live colonoscopy outcomes; however, a proficiency curriculum is less time-consuming and can provide a structured approach to prepare for both the FES exam and clinical endoscopy.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on the Impact of Proficiency-based Progression Simulation Training on Performance Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To analyze all published prospective, randomized, and blinded clinical studies on the proficiency-based progression (PBP) training using objective performance metrics.

BACKGROUND

The benefit of PBP methodology to learning clinical skills in comparison to conventional training is not settled.

METHODS

Search of PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, from inception to 1st March 2020. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Results were pooled using biased corrected standardized mean difference and ratio-of-means. Summary effects were evaluated using a series of fixed and random effects models. The primary outcome was the number of procedural errors performed comparing PBP and non-PBP-based training pathways. Secondary outcomes were the number of procedural steps completed and the time to complete the task/procedure.

RESULTS

From the initial pool of 468 studies, 12 randomized clinical studies with a total of 239 participants were included in the analysis. In comparison to the non-PBP training, ratio-of-means results showed that PBP training reduced the number of performance errors by 60% (P < 0.001) and procedural time by 15% (P = 0.003) and increased the number of steps performed by 47% (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Our systematic review and meta-analysis confirms that PBP training in comparison to conventional or quality assured training improved trainees' performances, by decreasing procedural errors and procedural time, while increasing the number of correct steps taken when compared to standard simulation-based training.

Does the advanced training in laparoscopic suturing enhance laparoscopic suturing skill beyond fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic suturing is associated with a steep learning curve. Hence, many general surgery graduate residents entering fellowship have reportedly not been able to proficiently suture laparoscopically despite achieving Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery certification. To address this deficiency, the Advanced Training in Laparoscopic Suturing curriculum was developed. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the Advanced Training in Laparoscopic Suturing curriculum in improving laparoscopic suturing skills compared with Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery training.

METHODS

Novices were enrolled in a prospective randomized controlled study. All novices followed proficiency-based training on Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery peg-transfer and intracorporeal suturing. Students were then stratified based on their peg-transfer performance and randomized into an Advanced Training in Laparoscopic Suturing or Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery group. The Advanced Training in Laparoscopic Suturing group trained on 3 of the 6 Advanced Training in Laparoscopic Suturing tasks (needle handling, offset forehand suturing, confined space suturing), while the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery group was assigned more stringent suturing performance goals. Each group trained for an additional 6 hours, after which the laparoscopic suturing performance of the 2 groups was compared on a Nissen fundoplication porcine model.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine medical students were enrolled in the study; 17 (11 males and 6 females) completed the study protocol (44%). Controlling for confounders including the student suturing performance at the end of stage-1 training, the Advanced Training in Laparoscopic Suturing group at the porcine model was significantly faster/safer (coefficient = 102.7, P = .037), and more skilled (coefficient = 19.1, P = .048) compared with the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery training alone the Advanced Training in Laparoscopic Suturing curriculum further enhances the laparoscopic suturing skill of novices. These findings support incorporating Advanced Training in Laparoscopic Suturing into existing skills curricula.