ArticleGynecology and minimally invasive therapy
Laparoscopic Simulation Training for Residents in Obstetrics and Gynecology Over 12 Months.
Article in Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy. 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.
- The PLET (Portable Laparoscopic Endo-Trainer) study: a randomized controlled trial of home- versus hospital-based surgical training.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Trial
- Effectiveness of Simulation-Based Gynecologic Endoscopy Training: A Systematic Review Comparing Objective Technical Skill Performance.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Intracorporeal vs. extracorporeal open and closed knot tying techniques in laparoscopy: A randomized, controlled study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Safe Implementation of Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Diseases at a Tertiary Center: Retrospective Analysis of 149 Cases and Review of the Literature.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
- Comprehensive Overview of Surgical Skill Training Strategies in the APAGE International Gynecologic Endoscopy Fellowship.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: As gynecology surgical cases are declining across the country, residency programs can benefit by training residents with simulation. We evaluate five Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) tasks over 12 months. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of 16 obstetrics and gynecology residents. Residents practiced on a FLS simulation box trainer. They were evaluated on completion time and pass/fail performance for the five tasks of peg transfer, precision cutting, loop ligation, suture with extracorporeal knot, and suture with intracorporeal knot. Resident satisfaction with FLS simulation box training was evaluated. Results: We found improvement of reduced time from baseline to 12 months for the tasks of peg transfer, precision cutting, suture with extracorporeal knot, and suture with intracorporeal knot. No time improvement was noted for loop ligation. We only found increased passing rates for the precision cutting task from baseline to 12 months. Residents agreed that simulation training improves surgical skills, improves patient safety, and improves confidence level in the operating room. Conclusion: We found improvement of decreased time with FLS simulator box training for FLS tasks of peg transfer, precision cutting, suture with extracorporeal knot, and suture with intracorporeal knot. We recommend that routine practice with the FLS simulator box trainer will increase resident confidence level and potentially improve surgical outcomes when in the operating room. We recommend including a dedicated portion of the academic curriculum for simulation training. FLS box training can be an essential tool for residency programs in obstetrics and gynecology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.