Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
The PLET (Portable Laparoscopic Endo-Trainer) study: a randomized controlled trial of home- versus hospital-based surgical training.
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06301230 (The PLET Study), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
The PLET Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Home- Versus Hospital-based Surgical Training
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the effect of training with a personal, portable laparoscopic endo-trainer (PLET) on residents' laparoscopic skills.
methodsThe study took place at a tertiary-care academic university hospital in Switzerland. All participants were randomized to either a home- or hospital-based PLET training group, and surgical skill performance was assessed using five laparoscopic exercises. 24 surgical residents, 13 females and 11 males, were enrolled at any training stage. Nine residents completed the assessments. Endpoints consisted of subjective and objective assessment ratings as well as exercise time and qualitative data up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in exercise time and secondary outcomes included performance scores as well as qualitative data.
resultsThe hospital-based training group performed exercises number 1, 3 and 4 faster at 12 weeks than at baseline (p = .003, < 0.001 and 0.024). Surgical skill performance was not statistically significantly different in any of the endpoints between the hospital- and home-based training groups at 12 weeks. Both the subjective and objective assessment ratings significantly improved in the hospital-based training group between baseline and 12 weeks (p = .006 and 0.003, respectively). There was no statistically significant improvement in exercise time as well as subjective and objective assessment ratings over time in the home-based training group. The qualitative data suggested that participants who were randomized to the hospital-based training group wished to have the PLET at home and vice versa. Several participants across groups lacked motivation because of their workload or time constraints, though most believed the COVID-19 pandemic had no influence on their motivation or the time they had for training.
conclusionThe PLET enhances laparoscopic surgical skills over time in a hospital-based training setting. In order to understand and optimize motivational factors, further research is needed.
trial registrationThis trial was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06301230).
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.