In Autumn 2020, DOAJ will be relaunching with a new website with updated functionality, improved search, and a simplified application form. More information is available on our blog. Our API is also changing.

Hide this message

Impact of Training on Three-Dimensional versus Two-Dimensional Laparoscopic Systems on Acquisition of Laparoscopic Skills in Novices: A Prospective Comparative Pilot Study

BioMed Research International. 2016;2016 DOI 10.1155/2016/4197693

 

Journal Homepage

Journal Title: BioMed Research International

ISSN: 2314-6133 (Print); 2314-6141 (Online)

Publisher: Hindawi Limited

LCC Subject Category: Medicine

Country of publisher: United Kingdom

Language of fulltext: English

Full-text formats available: PDF, HTML, ePUB, XML

 

AUTHORS


Yasser A. Noureldin (Division of Urology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada)

Ana Stoica (Division of Urology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada)

Pepa Kaneva (Division of Urology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada)

Sero Andonian (Division of Urology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada)

EDITORIAL INFORMATION

Blind peer review

Editorial Board

Instructions for authors

Time From Submission to Publication: 19 weeks

 

Abstract | Full Text

In this prospective educational study, 10 medical students (novices) were randomized to practice two basic laparoscopic tasks from the MISTELS program, namely, Pegboard Transfer (PT) and Intracorporeal Knot Tying (IKT) tasks, using either a 2D or a 3D laparoscopic platform. There was no significant difference between both groups in the baseline assessments (PT task: 130.8 ± 18.7 versus 151.5 ± 33.4; p=0.35) (IKT task: 123.9 ± 41.0 versus 122.9 ± 44.9; p=0.986). Following two training sessions, there was a significant increase in the scores of PT task for the 2D (130.8 ± 18.7 versus 222.6 ± 7.0; p = 0.0004) and the 3D groups (151.5 ± 33.4 versus 211.7 ± 16.2; p = 0.0001). Similarly, there was a significant increase in the scores of IKT task for the 2D (123.9 ± 41.0 versus 373.3 ± 47.2; p = 0.003) and the 3D groups (122.9 ± 44.9 versus 338.8 ± 28.6; p = 0.0005). However, there was no significant difference in the final assessment scores between 2D and 3D groups for both tasks (p > 0.05). Therefore, 3D laparoscopic systems do not provide an advantage over 2D systems for training novices in basic laparoscopic skills.