Serious gaming and virtual reality in the multimodal training of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the transferability of surgical skills for the laparoscopic hernia module between the serious game Touch Surgery™ (TS) and the virtual reality (VR) trainer Lap Mentor™. Furthermore, this study aimed to collect validity evidence and to discuss "sources of validity evidence" for the findings using the laparoscopic inguinal hernia module on TS. METHODS: In a randomized crossover study, medical students (n = 40) in their clinical years performed laparoscopic inguinal hernia modules on TS and the VR trainer. TS group started with "Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Module" on TS (phase 1: Preparation, phase 2: Port Placement and Hernia Repair), performed the module first in training, then in test mode until proficiency was reached. VR group started with "Inguinal Hernia Module" on the VR trainer (task 1: Anatomy Identification, task 2: Incision and Dissection) and also performed the module until proficiency. Once proficiency reached in the first modality, the groups performed the other training modality until reaching proficiency. Primary endpoint was the number of attempts needed to achieve proficiency for each group for each task/phase. RESULTS: Students starting with TS needed significantly less attempts to reach proficiency for task 1 on the VR trainer than students who started with the VR trainer (TS = 2.7 ± 0.6 vs. VR = 3.2 ± 0.7; p = 0.028). No significant differences for task 2 were observed between groups (TS = 2.3 ± 1.1 vs. VR = 2.1 ± 0.8; p = 0.524). For both phases on TS, no significant skill transfer from the VR trainer to TS was observed. Aspects of validity evidence for the module on TS were collected. CONCLUSION: The results show that TS brought additional benefit to improve performances on the VR trainer for task 1 but not for task 2. Skill transfer from the VR trainer to TS could not be shown. VR and TS should thus be used in combination with TS first in multimodal training to ensure optimal training conditions.

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) potentially reduces workload and shortens the surgical learning curve compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL). The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the initial learning phase for novices. METHODS: In a randomized crossover study, medical students (n = 40) in their clinical years performed both LC and RAC on a cadaveric porcine model. After standardized instructions and basic skill training, group 1 started with RAC and then performed LC, while group 2 started with LC and then performed RAC. The primary endpoint was surgical performance measured with Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score, secondary endpoints included operating time, complications (liver damage, gallbladder perforations, vessel damage), force applied to tissue, and subjective workload assessment. RESULTS: Surgical performance was better for RAC than for LC for total OSATS (RAC = 77.4 ± 7.9 vs. LC = 73.8 ± 9.4; p = 0.025, global OSATS (RAC = 27.2 ± 1.0 vs. LC = 26.5 ± 1.6; p = 0.012, and task specific OSATS score (RAC = 50.5 ± 7.5 vs. LC = 47.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.037). There were less complications with RAC than with LC (10 (25.6%) vs. 26 (65.0%), p = 0.006) but no difference in operating times (RAC = 77.0 ± 15.3 vs. LC = 75.5 ± 15.3 min; p = 0.517). Force applied to tissue was similar. Students found RAC less physical demanding and less frustrating than LC. CONCLUSIONS: Novices performed their first cholecystectomies with better performance and less complications with RAS than with CL, while operating time showed no differences. Students perceived less subjective workload for RAS than for CL. Unlike our expectations, the lack of haptic feedback on the robotic system did not lead to higher force application during RAC than LC and did not increase tissue damage. These results show potential advantages for RAS over CL for surgical novices while performing their first RAC and LC using an ex vivo cadaveric porcine model. REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry6029.

Endoscopic versus surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of endoscopic and surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) based on results of randomized controlled trials (RCT). BACKGROUND: Treatment of INP has changed in the last two decades with adoption of interventional, endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical procedures for drainage and necrosectomy. However, this relies mostly on observational studies. METHODS: We performed a systematic review following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines and AMSTAR-2 criteria and searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trails that compared an endoscopic treatment to a surgical treatment for patients with infected walled-off necrosis and included one of the main outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The main outcomes were mortality and new onset multiple organ failure. Prospero registration ID: CRD42019126033 RESULTS: Three RCTs with 190 patients were included. Intention to treat analysis showed no difference in mortality. However, patients in the endoscopic group had statistically significant lower odds of experiencing new onset multiple organ failure (odds ratio (OR) confidence interval [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.98]) and were statistically less likely to suffer from perforations of visceral organs or enterocutaneous fistulae (OR [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.93]), and pancreatic fistulae (OR [CI] 0.09 [0.03, 0.28]). Patients with endoscopic treatment had a statistically significant lower mean hospital stay (Mean difference [CI] - 7.86 days [- 14.49, - 1.22]). No differences in bleeding requiring intervention, incisional hernia, exocrine or endocrine insufficiency or ICU stay were apparent. Overall certainty of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: There seem to be possible benefits of endoscopic treatment procedure. Given the heterogenous procedures in the surgical group as well as the low amount of randomized evidence, further studies are needed to evaluate the combination of different approaches and appropriate timepoints for interventions.