Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2015
The effects of acute aerobic exercise on the acquisition and retention of laparoscopic skills.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute Aerobic Exercise-Induced Motor Priming Improves Piano Performance and Alters Motor Cortex Activation.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Physical activity, motor performance and skill learning: a focus on primary motor cortex in healthy aging.Experimental brain research · 2021Review
- Effect of a Single Bout of Acute Aerobic Exercise at Moderate-to-Vigorous Intensities on Motor Learning, Retention and Transfer.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- HIIT the Road Jack: An Exploratory Study on the Effects of an Acute Bout of Cardiovascular High-Intensity Interval Training on Piano Learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- A Single Bout of Aerobic Exercise Improves Motor Skill Consolidation in Parkinson's Disease.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExercise is beneficial to learning. The purpose of this research was to determine whether an episode of aerobic exercise prior to practice improves the acquisition and retention of laparoscopic skills in the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) simulator.
methodsBaseline maximal physical fitness (VO2 max), performance on peg transfer (PT), pattern cut (PC), and intracorporeal suture (ICS) were measured for FLS naïve undergraduates. 2 Weeks later, participants were randomized into exercise (E) and control (C) groups. C did unrelated work for 40 min and then practiced PT and PC for 10 min, and ICS for 15 min. Final scores were recorded. In E, participants ran on a treadmill for 20 min at 60 % of their VO2 max. After a 15 min cool down, they engaged in identical FLS simulator training as group C. Both groups completed the NASA task load index (TLX) to assess workload. Retention was recorded 2 months after the training session. Groups were compared using t tests, χ(2) and Wilcoxon rank tests. p < 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsThere were 52 participants (22 in C; 30 in E) with high physical fitness at baseline. Demographics between the groups were similar at baseline. There were no differences in VO2 max and scores on the three tasks at baseline (all p values NS). There was no statistical significance between the scores of the C and E groups at the training session and retention, except for higher PT scores in the E group after the training session.
conclusionIn physically fit, surgically naïve students, one bout of aerobic exercise enhanced immediate learning of simple FLS skills but did not have an impact on more complex skills or on retention. The use of exercise in the surgical curriculum, or as a learning tool, warrants further investigation regarding how best to apply it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25005017What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.