Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26511123›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Acquisition and retention of laparoscopic skills is different comparing conventional laparoscopic and single-incision laparoscopic surgery: a single-centre, prospective randomized study.

Scott Michael Ellis, Martin Varley, Stuart Howell, Markus Trochsler, Guy Maddern, Peter Hewett, Tina Runge, Soeren Torge Mees

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Scott Michael EllisDivision of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Martin VarleyDivision of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Stuart HowellData Management and Analysis Centre, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Markus TrochslerDivision of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Guy MaddernDivision of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Peter HewettDivision of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Tina RungeDivision of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Soeren Torge MeesDivision of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia. torge.mees@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraining in laparoscopic surgery is important not only to acquire and improve skills but also avoid the loss of acquired abilities. The aim of this single-centre, prospective randomized study was to assess skill acquisition of different laparoscopic techniques and identify the point in time when acquired skills deteriorate and training is needed to maintain these skills.

methodsSixty surgical novices underwent laparoscopic surgery (LS) and single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) baseline training (BT) performing two validated tasks (peg transfer, precision cutting). The novices were randomized into three groups and skills retention testing (RT) followed after 8 (group A), 10 (group B) or 12 (group C) weeks accordingly. Task performance was measured in time with time penalties for insufficient task completion.

results92 % of the participants completed the BT and managed to complete the task in the required time frame of proficiency. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that SILS (P < 0.0001) and precision cutting (P < 0.0001) were significantly more difficult. Males performed significantly better than females (P < 0.005). For LS, a deterioration of skills (comparison of BT vs RT) was not identified; however, for SILS a significant deterioration of skills (adjustment of BT and RT values) was demonstrated for all groups (A-C) (P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Our data reveal that complex laparoscopic tasks (cutting) and techniques (SILS) are more difficult to learn and acquired skills more difficult to maintain. Acquired LS skills were maintained for the whole observation period of 12 weeks but SILS skills had begun to deteriorate at 8 weeks. These data show that maintenance of LS and SILS skills is divergent and training curricula need to take these specifics into account.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceAdultCurriculumFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLearning CurveMaleProspective StudiesRandom AllocationRetention, PsychologySex FactorsLSSILSSkill acquisitionSkill retentionSurgical novices

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.