Conception of the Lübeck Toolbox curriculum for basic minimally invasive surgery skills
- 102 Downloads
Difficulties at the beginning of the learning curve in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can well be overcome by simulation outside the operating room. Despite a great number of available devices, standardized, structured, and validated training curricula for video simulators are scarce.
The Lübeck Toolbox (LTB) video trainer provides six training modules and online video tutorials. Proficiency levels for the tasks were defined by performance analysis of MIS experts (n = 15). Mean values of the best performed repetitions were set as benchmarks for a validation study with n = 30 MIS novices and the learning curves calculated. The novices performed a cholecystectomy on a pig organ model before and after the curriculum which were analyzed using the GOALS score.
Benchmarks defined by expert performance for the task Nos. 1 to 6 were 72 s (± 8) (Pack Your Luggage), 49 s (± 9) (Weaving), 66 s (± 10) (Chinese Jump Rope), 89 s (± 28) (Triangle Cut), 138 s (± 44) (Hammer Cut), and 98 (± 22) (Suturing). The median numbers of required repetitions by the novices to reach the proficiency level were n = 42 (7–80), n = 26 (9–55), n = 32 (14–77), n = 44 (15–59), n = 19 (6–68), and n = 26 (15–60). These values were all located at the beginning of the plateau phase of the learning curves. GOALS score improved significantly after completion of the curriculum (18.0 (± 2.6) vs. 10.9 (± 1.6), p < 0.0001).
The LTB curriculum constitutes a new highly standardized and proficiency level-based training program for basic skills in MIS. Transferability of the task content to a (sub)-realistic environment could be demonstrated. Still, future trials will have to further validate the effectiveness of the LTB curriculum.
KeywordsLaparoscopy Training Simulation Lübeck Toolbox Education Minimally invasive surgery
We thank Freya Zielke for her tedious and reliable work throughout the study.
Study conception and design: TL, HE, AH, H-PB; acquisition of data: HE, PA, AH, MT; analysis and interpretation of data: TL, PA, AH, TK; drafting of the manuscript: TL, CB; critical revision of the manuscript: all authors
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Tilman Laubert and Hamed Esnaashari are co-founders of LTB Ltd.
Paul Auerswald, Anna Höfer, Hans-Peter Bruch, Tobias Keck, and Claudia Benecke declare that they have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
- 3.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(4):458–463; discussion 463-454. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SLA.0000028969.51489.B4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.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(5):1737–1747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2672-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Laubert T EH, Höfer A, Renner L, Roblick UJ, Strik M, Bruch HP (2013) Entwicklung eines standardisierten Trainings curriculums für die minimalinvasive Chirurgie–Projekt Lübecker Toolbox Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. www.egms.de/en/meetings/dgch2013/13dgch839.shtml
- 11.Bilgic E, Watanabe Y, Nepomnayshy D, Gardner A, Fitzgibbons S, Ghaderi I, Alseidi A, Stefanidis D, Paige J, Seymour N, KM MK, Birkett R, Whitledge J, Kane E, Anton NE, Vassiliou MC, Simulation Committee of the Association for Surgical E (2017) Multicenter proficiency benchmarks for advanced laparoscopic suturing tasks. Am J Surg 213(2):217–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.07.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Vanderbilt AA, Grover AC, Pastis NJ, Feldman M, Granados DD, Murithi LK, Mainous AG, 3rd (2014) Randomized controlled trials: a systematic review of laparoscopic surgery and simulation-based training. Glob J Health Sci 7 (2):310–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v7n2p310
- 17.Scott DJ, Pugh CM, Ritter EM, Jacobs LM, Pellegrini CA, Sachdeva AK (2011) New directions in simulation-based surgical education and training: validation and transfer of surgical skills, use of nonsurgeons as faculty, use of simulation to screen and select surgery residents, and long-term follow-up of learners. Surgery 149(6):735–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2010.11.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Feldman LS, Cao J, Andalib A, Fraser S, Fried GM (2009) A method to characterize the learning curve for performance of a fundamental laparoscopic simulator task: defining “learning plateau” and “learning rate”. Surgery 146(2):381–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.02.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Laubert TTM, Auerswald P, Zimmermann M, Brüheim L, Keck T, Benecke C (2017) Implementation of a laparoscopic simulation training in undergraduate medical education—the Lübeck Toolbox-Curriculum. Zentralbl Chir 142:1–7Google Scholar
- 25.Kowalewski KF, Hendrie JD, Schmidt MW, Proctor T, Paus S, Garrow CR, Kenngott HG, Müller-Stick BP, Nickel F (2017) Validation of the mobile serious game application Touch Surgery™ for cognitive training and assessment of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 31(10):4058–4066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5452-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Nickel F, Brzoska JA, Gondan M, Rangnick HM, Chu J, Kenngott HG, Linke GR, Kadmon M, Fischer L, Müller-Stich BP (2015) Virtual reality training versus blended learning of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial with laparoscopic novices. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(20):e763. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000764
- 27.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 (2):202–206. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.03.009
- 28.Nickel F, Kowalewski KF, Rehberger F, Hendrie JD, Mayer BR, Kenngott HG, Bintintan V, Linke GR, Fischer L, Müller-Stich BP (2017) Face validity of the pulsatile organ perfusion trainer for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 31(2):714–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5025-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Nickel F, Jede F, Minassian A, Gondan M, Hendrie JD, Gehring T, Linke GR, Kadmon M, Fischer L, Müller-Stick 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(1):137. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-137 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 30.Sroka G, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA, Fayez R, Fried GM (2010) Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room—a randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg 199(1):115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.07.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Nickel F, Hendrie JD, Stock C, Salama M, Preukschass AA, Senft JD, Kowalewski KF, Wagner M, Kenngott HG, Linke GR, Rischer L, Müller-Stick BP (2016) Direct observation versus endoscopic video recording-based rating with the objective structured assessment of technical skills for training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur Surg Res 57(1–2):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000444449 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar