Intra-abdominal collections following laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: an experience of 516 consecutive cases at a district general hospital.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the incidence of intra-abdominal collections (IACs) in all patients undergoing laparoscopic (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) from April 2009 to October 2011 in a district general hospital with expertise in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing appendicectomy in the specified time period was carried out. IACs were identified from various in-hospital data resources. Severity of appendicitis was assessed from histology reports. RESULTS: 516 patients were identified, of whom 242 (47 %) underwent OA and 274 (53 %) LA. Twenty-six (5 %) patients were found to have IACs postoperatively. Fifteen (5.5 %) IACs were identified in the laparoscopic group and 11 (4.5 %) in the open group. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of developing IACs in open versus laparoscopic groups [odds ratio (OR) 1.22, confidence interval (CI) 0.55-2.70, P = 0.63]. Patients were twelve times more likely to develop IACs with an appendix identified as being necrotic or perforated on histology (OR 12.24, CI 5.29-28.32, P < 0.0001). There was a trend towards shorter total hospital stay in the LA (3.58 days, CI 3.0-4.1 days) compared with OA (4.31 days, CI 3.7-4.9 days, P = 0.082) group, although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of IAC following LA have been identified in some studies. Our series shows that, in a centre with adequate MIS experience, the IAC rate following LA is comparable to that of the open approach and should not deter surgeons with adequate support and resources.

Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare learning curves for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) after training on a proficiency based virtual reality (VR) curriculum with that of a traditionally trained group. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Simulator-based training has been shown to improve technical performance during real laparoscopic procedures, although research to date has not proven the persistence of this effect over subsequent cases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty novice surgeons underwent baseline laparoscopic skills testing followed by a 1-day didactic training session. Control subjects (n = 10) performed 5 cadaveric porcine LCs each; VR-trained subjects (n = 10) completed a VR training curriculum followed by 3 porcine LCs each. A further 10 experienced laparoscopic surgeons (>100 LCs) performed 2 porcine LCs each to define benchmark levels. Technical skill assessment was by motion analysis and video-based global rating scores (out of 35). RESULTS: There were no intergroup differences in baseline skill. The first LC revealed significant differences between control and VR groups for time (median 4590 seconds vs. 2165 seconds, P = 0.038), path length (169.2 meters vs. 86.8 meters, P = 0.009), number of movements (2446 vs. 1029, P = 0.009), and video scores (17 vs. 25, P = 0.001). The VR group, although not a control, achieved video and dexterity scores equivalent to expert levels of performance. CONCLUSIONS: A proficiency based VR training curriculum shortens the learning curve on real laparoscopic procedures when compared with traditional training methods. This may be a more cost- and time-effective approach, and supports the need for simulator-based practice to be integrated into surgical training programs.

Multidisciplinary crisis simulations: the way forward for training surgical teams.

BACKGROUND: High-reliability organizations have stressed the importance of non-technical skills for safety and of regularly providing such training to their teams. Recently safety skills training has been applied in the practice of medicine. In this study, we developed and piloted a module using multidisciplinary crisis scenarios in a simulated operating theatre to train entire surgical teams. METHODS: Twenty teams participated (n = 80); each consisted of a trainee surgeon, anesthetist, operating department practitioner (ODP), and scrub nurse. Crisis scenarios such as difficult intubation, hemorrhage, or cardiac arrest were simulated. Technical and non-technical skills (leadership, communication, team skills, decision making, and vigilance), were assessed by clinical experts and by two psychologists using relevant technical and human factors rating scales. Participants received technical and non-technical feedback, and the whole team received feedback on teamwork. RESULTS: Trainees assessed the training favorably. For technical skills there were no differences between surgical trainees' assessment scores and the assessment scores of the trainers. However, nurses overrated their technical skill. Regarding non-technical skills, leadership and decision making were scored lower than the other three non-technical skills (communication, team skills, and vigilance). Surgeons scored lower than nurses on communication and teamwork skills. Surgeons and anesthetists scored lower than nurses on leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary simulation-based team training is feasible and well received by surgical teams. Non-technical skills can be assessed alongside technical skills, and differences in performance indicate where there is a need for further training. Future work should focus on developing team performance measures for training and on the development and evaluation of systematic training for technical and non-technical skills to enhance team performance and safety in surgery.