Impact of visual–spatial ability on laparoscopic camera navigation training
Technical limitations of minimally invasive surgery challenge both surgeons and camera assistants. Current research indicates that visual–spatial ability (VSA) has impact on learning of laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN). However, it remains unclear if complexity of LCN tasks influences the impact of VSA. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of VSA on LCN training within tasks of different complexity levels.
The present study was conducted as a monocentric prospective trial. VSA was assessed with a cube comparison test before participants underwent LCN training. LCN training consisted of three tasks with increasing complexity. Each task was performed four times and performance was assessed each time. Correlations and multivariate regression analysis were used to assess the influence of VSA on LCN skills.
Seventy-one participants were included (35 males). Significant performance improvement and faster completion times were observed from the first to fourth trial of all three LCN training tasks. Significant positive correlations between VSA and performance on LCN task 3 were found (performance: r s = 0.47; p < 0.001, time: r s = −0.43; p < 0.001). Multivariate regression revealed that higher VSA resulted in greater reduction of time between the first trials of LCN training task 3 (B = −1.67, p = 0.031).
In the present study, all trainees improved LCN performance during the training. VSA seems to have impact on LCN performance and training progress particularly for complex LCN tasks. The relation of VSA and LCN performance was stronger for less experienced participants and in the beginning of the learning phase.
KeywordsVisual–spatial ability Laparoscopy Camera navigation Skills Training Complex tasks
Minimally invasive surgery
Laparoscopic camera navigation
We would like to thank Sarah Trent for proofreading the manuscript. We would like to thank Marion Link for her help with organizing this study.
The current study was supported by the Heidelberg Surgery Foundation and by the Ministry of Science and Arts of the State Baden Wurttemberg.
Study conception and design: Nickel, Kenngott, Rangnick, Müller-Stich. Acquisition of data: Nickel, Rangnick, Brozska, Müller, Müller-Stich. Statistical analysis: Benner, Roch, Rangnick, Nickel, Kenngott. Analysis and interpretation of data: Roch, Nickel, Müller, Brozska, Kowalewski. Drafting of manuscript: Roch, Rangnick, Nickel, Kowalewski. Critical revision: Müller-Stich, Nickel. All authors read and approved the final version of this manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Felix Nickel reports receiving travel support for conference participation as well as equipment provided for laparoscopic surgery courses by KARL STORZ, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. Paul J. Roch, Henriette M. Rangnick, Julia A. Brzoska, Laura Benner, Philip C. Müller, Hannes G. Kenngott, Beat-Peter Müller-Stich, and Felix Nickel have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 3.Nickel F, Hendrie JD, Stock C, Salama M, Preukschas AA, Senft JD, Kowalewski KF, Wagner M, Kenngott HG, Linke GR, Fischer L, Muller-Stich 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. doi: 10.1159/000444449 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Nickel F, Hendrie JD, Kowalewski KF, Bruckner T, Garrow CR, Mantel M, Kenngott HG, Romero P, Fischer L, Muller-Stich BP (2016) Sequential learning of psychomotor and visuospatial skills for laparoscopic suturing and knot tying-a randomized controlled trial “The Shoebox Study” DRKS00008668. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 401(6):893–901. doi: 10.1007/s00423-016-1421-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Stefanidis D, Haluck R, Pham T, Dunne JB, Reinke T, Markley S, Korndorffer JR Jr, Arellano P, Jones DB, Scott DJ (2007) Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation: virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center. Surg Endosc 21(7):1158–1164. doi: 10.1007/s00464-006-9112-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Louridas M, Quinn LE, Grantcharov TP (2016) Predictive value of background experiences and visual spatial ability testing on laparoscopic baseline performance among residents entering postgraduate surgical training. Surg Endosc 30(3):1126–1133. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4313-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Stumpf H, Fay E (1983) Schlauchfiguren. Ein Test zur Beurteilung des räumlichen Vorstellungsvermögens, vol 1. Verlag für Psychologie (Hogrefe), GöttingenGoogle Scholar
- 14.Trost G, Blum F, Fay F, Klieme F, Maichle U, Meyer M (1998) Evaluation des Tests für medizinische Studiengänge (TMS): Synopse der Ergebnisse. Institut für Test- und Begabungsforschung, BonnGoogle Scholar
- 17.Dawson B, Trapp R (2004) Basic & clinical biostatistics, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hanhoon P, Moon-Hyun L, Sang-Jun K, Jong-Il P Specular reflection elimination for projection-based augmented reality. In: Fourth IEEE and ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR’05), 5–8 Oct, 2005, pp 194–195. doi: 10.1109/ISMAR.2005.54
- 20.Najmaldin A, Rothenberg S, Crabbe D, Beasley S (2005) Operative endoscopy and endoscopic surgery in infants and children. Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 21.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(20):e764. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000764 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Ekstrom RB, Harman HH (1976) Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests, 1976. Educational Testing Service, PrincetonGoogle Scholar