Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of different training models for laparoscopic surgery in neonates and small infants

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive surgery in small children and infants requires special skills and training. This experimental study compares the efficiency of an in vitro pelvic trainer (PT) and an a in vivo animal model (AM).

Methods

For this study, 12 residents were prospectively randomized into two groups. Initially, all had to pass a basic skill assessment (3 tasks). Then endoscopic small bowel biopsy was performed (8 times) either with the in vitro PT (group A) or the in vivo AM (group B). Finally, all had to demonstrate this procedure in the in vivo AM and repeat the basic skill assessment. A quality index (complications, suture, biopsy) was evaluated.

Results

Initially, there was no difference between the two groups. Interestingly, the mean regression gradient of the index for the in vitro PT (group A) was significantly better than for the in vivo AM (group B). In the final in vivo operation, however, the mean index for the in vitro PT (group A) worsened significantly, whereas it increased for the in vivo AM (group B) (p = 0.037).

Conclusion

Adequate training for an isolated mechanical task such as gut biopsy can be supplied using a pelvic trainer or animal model with similar effects. However in vivo performance of the same task requires secondary surgical skills, which are conveyed during live training with greater success. Consequently, stepwise teaching with both modules seems reasonable before these procedures are approached in neonates or small children.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bohm B, Milsom JW (1994) Animal models as educational tools in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 8: 707–713

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cagir B, Rangraj M, Maffuci L, Herz BL (1994) The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Surg 4: 419–427

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dent TL, (1991) Training, credentialing and granting of clinical privileges for laparoscopic general surgery. Am J Surg 161: 399–404

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigma HH, Fried GM (1998) The effect of practice on performance in a laproscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 12: 117–1120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M, Sigman HH, Barkun JS, Meakins JL (1998) Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 175: 482–487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Edwards CC, Bailey RW (2000) Laparoscopic hernia repair: the learning curve. Surg Laparsc Endosc Percutan Tech 10: 149–153

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hunter JG, Sackier JM, Berci G (1994) Training in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: quantifying the learning curve. Surg Endosc 8: 28–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kellnar S, Till H, Böhm R (1997) Thoracoscopic surgery of esophagus in rats: a training concept for treatment of tracheo-esophageal malformations in preterm infants. Pediat Surg Int 12: 116–117

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, Macrae H, Murnahan J, Hutchison C, Brown N (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84: 273–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Melvin WS, Johnson JA, Ellison EC (1996) Laparoscopic skills enhancement. Am J Surg 172: 377–379

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mori T, Hatano N, Maruyama S, Atomi Y (1998) Significance of “hands-on training” in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 12: 256–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosser JC, Rosser LE, Savalgi RS (1997) Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopis surgery. Arch Surg 132: 200–204

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Scott-Conner CEH, Hall TJ, Anglin BL, Muakkassa FF, Poole GV, Thompson AR, Wilton PB (1994) The integration of laparoscopy into a surgical residency and implication for the training enviroment. Surg Endosc 8: 1054–1057

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scott DJ, Bergen PC, Rege RV, Laycock R, Tesfay ST, Valentine RJ, Euhus DM, Jeyarajah DR, Thompson WM, Jones DB (2000) Laparoscopic training on bench models: better and more cost effective than operating room experience? J Am Coll Surg 191: 272–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shapiro SJ, Paz-Partlow M, Daykhovsky L, Gordon LA (1996) The use of a modular skills center for maintenance of laparosopic skills. Surg Endosc 10: 816–819

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Till H, Kirlum HJ, Böhm R, Joppich I (2001) Thoracoscopic correction of esophageal atresia: training in rabbits provides valuable surgical expertise and shortens the learning curve. Ped Endosurg Innovation Techn 5: 235–239

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wolfe BM, Szabo Z, Moran ME, Chan P, Hunter JG (1993) Training for minimally invasive surgery: need for surgical skills. Surg Endosc 7: 93–95

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Heinrich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heinrich, M., Tillo, N., Kirlum, HJ. et al. Comparison of different training models for laparoscopic surgery in neonates and small infants. Surg Endosc 20, 641–644 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2040-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2040-7

Keywords

Navigation