ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2023
Laparoscopic training on virtual-reality simulators or live pigs-a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic training in porcine models: a tool for continuous professional skill enhancement for paediatric surgeons.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a progressive laparoscopic training program for clinical professional master's degree residents in china: skill improvement and educational implications.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Endosurgery workshop to improve the confidence of novice pediatric surgeons in performing laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy.Pediatric surgery international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy of virtual-reality (VR) simulator training and surgical training on live pigs to explore the most effective and evidence-based training modality. Materials and methods: Thirty-six novice surgical residents without independent laparoscopic experience were randomly paired with a peer and randomized into three groups: VR simulator group (dyad training on LapSim VR simulators), pig surgery group (training on live, anesthetized pigs) and control group (training by a lecture on laparoscopic surgery, surgical videos and textbooks). After 6 h of training, all participants performed a simulated cholecystectomy procedure using a pig liver with adherent gallbladder working in pairs. All procedures were video-recorded and the recordings were saved on USB-sticks in a blinded fashion identifiable only by the unique participant number. All video-recordings were scored blindly and independently by two expert raters using the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) assessment instrument. Results: The performances in the three groups were significantly different, Conclusion: Novice surgical trainees can benefit from both VR simulator training and pig surgery simulation compared with traditional studying and there was no significant difference between the two modalities. The authors recommend that VR simulators should be used for basic training of laparoscopic skills and surgery on live animals should be reserved for higher-level surgical training.
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.