Advertisement

Hysterectomy pp 235-248 | Cite as

Learning by Doing: How to Teach Hysterectomy

  • Carolin SpüntrupEmail author
  • Marc Banerjee
  • Elmar Spüntrup
Chapter
  • 770 Downloads

Abstract

Surgical education is traditionally transferred using a learning-by doing apprenticeship model in real patients. Ethical aspects and other factors make it necessary to innovate the established model. The positive effects of simulated training for pilots induced the development of simulated skill trainers also for surgeons. Using these trainers several educational strategies, basing on findings of behavioral sciences, have been described during the last decades. This chapter is dedicated to modern surgical training systems with a special focus on hysterectomy trainers.

Keywords

Surgical skill training Simulated training Artificial hysterectomy Learning strategies Virtual reality trainers Real Simulator 

References

  1. 1.
    Munro MG. Surgical simulation: where have we come from? Where are we now? Where are we going? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(3):272–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fried GM, Feldmann LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, Andrew CG. Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2004;240:518–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smyth CM. Graduate surgical training in America. Ann Surg. 1945;121(6):793–802.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gallagher AG, Lederman AB, McGlade K, Satava RM, Smith CD. Discriminative validity of the Minimally Invasive Surgical Trainer in Virtual Reality (MIST-VR) using criteria levels based on expert performance. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(4):660–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H, Higgins G, Fried MP, Moses G, Smith CD, Satava RM. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skill training. Ann Surg. 2005;241(2):364–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Fitts FM, Posner MI. Human performance. Belmont: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co; 1967.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esysenck M, Keane M. Cognitive psychology: a student handbook. Hove: Erlbaum; 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Banerjee C, Cosentino M, Hatzmann W, Noé KG. Endoscopic intracorporal knotting and suture techniques: talent or experience? Gyn Surg. 2010;7:16_4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallagher A, Satava R. Virtual reality as a metric for the assessment of laparoscopic psychomotor skills: learning curves and reliability measures. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1746–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spencer F. Teaching and measuring surgical techniques: the technical evaluation of competence. Bull Am Coll Surg. 1978:9–12.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hier und heute Reportage 2010 (“nähkurs für ärzte”).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ritter E, McClusky D, Gallagher A, et al. Objective psychomotor skills assessment of experienced and novice flexible endoscopists with a virtual reality simulator. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7:871–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Club TSS. The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 1995;170:55–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spüntrup C, Noé GK, Spüntrup E. Lernprogramme in der Gynäkologie: learning by doing – aber bitte erst am Modell. Der Frauenarzt. 2012;53(10):952–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanna G, Frank T, Cuschieri A. Objective assessment of endoscopic knot quality. Am J Surg. 1997;174:410–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gallagher A, Richie K, McClure N, et al. Objective psychomotor skills assessment of experienced, junior, and novice laparoscopists with virtual reality. World J Surg. 2001;25:1478–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N. Assessing operative skill. BMJ. 1999;318:887.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patent Henrickson D. Bellezzo F. US 2014/0072941 A1, Mar 13, 2014.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patent WO 2011/046606 A1 (MIYAZAKI DOUGLAS W US) 21. Apr 2011 (2011–04-21).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hammer N, Löffler S, Feja C, Sandrock M, Schmidt W, Bechmann I, Steinke H. Ethanol-glycerin fixation with thymol conservation: a potential alternative to formaldehyde and phenol embalming. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(4):225–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hammer N, Löffler S, Bechmann I, Steinke H, Hädrich C, Feja C. Comparison of modified thiel embalming and ethanol-glycerin fixation in an anatomy environment: potentials and limitations of two complementary techniques. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(1):74–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moglia A, Ferrari V, Morelli L, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A. A systematic review of virtual reality simulators for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol. 2015;69(6):1065–80. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.09.021. S0302-2838(15)00929-X. [Epub ahead of print].CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu M, Curet M. A review of training research and virtual reality simulators for the da Vinci surgical system. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(1):12–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rogers DA, Elstein AS, Bordage G. Improving continuing medical education for surgical techniques: applying the lessons learned in the first decade of minimal access surgery. Ann Surg. 2001;233:159–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolin Spüntrup
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marc Banerjee
    • 1
    • 3
  • Elmar Spüntrup
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Witten/HerdeckeWittenGermany
  2. 2.University of Witten/Herdecke, Endoscopic Gynecology, Pelvic School SaarbrückenSaarbrückenGermany
  3. 3.University of Witten/Herdecke, Praxis für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Media Park KlinikCologneGermany
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyKlinikum SaarbrückenSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations