• Am. J. Surg. · Feb 2016

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Optimizing training cost-effectiveness of simulation-based laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs.

    • Roberto Hernández-Irizarry, Benjamin Zendejas, Shahzad M Ali, and David R Farley.
    • Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
    • Am. J. Surg. 2016 Feb 1; 211 (2): 326-35.

    BackgroundMotor learning theory suggests that highly complex tasks are probably best trained under conditions of part task (PT), as opposed to whole-task (WT) training. Within PT, random practice of tasks has been shown to lead to improved skill retention and transfer.MethodsGeneral surgery residents were equally randomized to PT vs WT, mastery learning type, and simulation-based training of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Training time and resources used to reach mastery (skill acquisition), performance at 1-month testing (skill retention), and intraoperative time and performance scores (skill transfer) were compared.ResultsForty-four general surgery trainees were randomized. All residents achieved mastery benchmarks. Trainees in the PT group achieved mastery on average 17 minutes faster (60.2 ± 23.8 vs 77.1 ± 24.8 minutes, P = .02, saving 6.2 instructor hours), used fewer material resources (curricular cost savings of $2,380 or $121 per learner), and were more likely to retain mastery level performance at 1-month retention testing (59% vs 22.7% P = .03). No differences in intraoperative performance were encountered.ConclusionsFor laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, random PT simulation-based training seems to be more cost-effective, compared with WT training.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…