Basics of laparoscopy on box and virtual simulators I: a 10-year (2014–2024) evaluation from the perspective of the course participants

Czech version

Authors: Z. Chovanec ^1,2; A. Berková ¹; J. Habr ¹; T. Paseka ³; F. Sasínek ¹; P. Štourač ²; I. Penka ¹
Authors‘ workplace: I. chirurgická klinika LF MU, a FN u sv. Anny v Brně ¹; Ústav simulační medicíny, a Simulační centrum, LF MU, Brno ²; SurGal Clinic s. r. o., Brno ³
Published in: Rozhl. Chir., 2025, roč. 104, č. 7, s. 283-288.
Category: Original articles
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccrvch2025283

Overview

Introduction and aims: The training of young surgeons in the Czech Republic includes the completion of mini-invasive, laparoscopic simulation courses on a voluntary basis. The aim of this study is to show how simulation is used now to train surgeons and to look back at 10 years of running a simulation, laparoscopic, mini-invasive course from the graduates’ points of view using box and virtual reality simulators.

Type of study: Observational, survey.

Methods: Data were collected from 26 courses (2014–2024) by an anonymous questionnaire. The questionnaires were completed by all graduates (100%). Their evaluation was done by the descriptive statistics method. Questions were asked about expectations and fulfilment of the expectations from the course with its possible recommendation and financial cost.

Results: A total of 96 doctors, 55 men and 41 women, participated in the courses. The questionnaires were completed by all participants. In 89 cases (92.7%), the candidates wanted to learn the correct technique, tips, and tricks in laparoscopic surgery; in 42 cases (43.8%), they expected an increase in the operative time; and in 37 cases (38.5%), a deepening of anatomical and theoretical knowledge was mentioned. The course completely fulfilled the expectations in 92% of the cases, in 6.0% of the cases, it fulfilled them with minor reservations and in 2.0% it fulfilled them partially. Ninety seven percent of participants would recommend the course as compulsory; 3% would leave its recommendation to the discretion of the graduate. Twenty-eight participants (29.2%) fully paid for the course; 5 (5.2%) participants partially paid; and 63 (65.6%) participants received payment from their employer.

Conclusion: The participants recommended the simulation course for compulsory inclusion in the surgical education curriculum, and about one-third of them also expressed willingness to pay for the optional education. Although simulators and simulations in surgery represent an important training potential, the subsequent role of mentor in the form of certified, experienced colleague(s) cannot be replaced by them.

Keywords:

surgery – Education – laparoscopy – medical simulation

Sources

1. Eder-Van Hook J. Building a national agenda for simulation-based medical education. Washington: Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center [online]. Available from: https://www.vascomedical.gr/training/blog1.pdf.

2. Boud D, Feletti G. The challenge of problem-based learning. 1^st ed. London: Routledge 2013 [online]. Available from: https://www.perlego.com/book/1577032/the-challenge-of-problembased-learning-pdf.

3. Burgess AW, McGregor DM, Mellis CM. Applying established guidelines to team-based learning programs in medical schools: a systematic review. Acad Med 2014; 89(4): 678–688. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000162.

4. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER et al. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med 2011; 86(6): 706–711. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119.

5. Bresler L, Perez M, Hubert J et al. Residency training in robotic surgery: The role of simulation. J Visc Surg 2020; 157(3 Suppl 2): S123–S129. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2020.03.006.

6. Patel HR. Simulation training in laparoscopy and robotic surgery. J Vis Surg 2017; 3: 177. doi: 10.21037/jovs.2017.11.06.

7. Duda M, Zeman M, Fára M. Taktika a technika operací. In: Zeman M, Krška Z (eds). Chirurgická propedeutika. 3. vyd. Praha: Grada Publishing 2011: 227.

8. Yiannakopoulou E, Nikiteas N, Perrea D et al. Virtual reality simulators and training in laparoscopic surgery. Int J Surg 2015; 13: 60–64. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijsu.2014.11.014.

9. Tan SC, Marlow N, Field J et al. A randomized crossover trial examining low- versus high-fidelity simulation in basic laparoscopic skills training. Surg Endosc 2012; 26(11): 3207–3214. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2326-0.

10. Diesen DL, Erhunmwunsee L, Bennett KM et al. Effectiveness of laparoscopic computer simulator versus usage of box trainer for endoscopic surgery training of novices. J Surg Educ 2011; 68(4): 282–289. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.02.007.

11. Botden SM, Jakimowicz JJ. What is going on in augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc 2009; 23(8): 1693–1700. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0144-1.

12. Friedman RL, Pace BW. Resident education in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1996; 10(1): 26–28. doi: 10.1007/s004649910005.

13. Scott DJ, Bergen PC, Rege RV et al. Laparoscopic training on bench models: better and more cost effective than operating room experience? J Am Coll Surg 2000; 191(3): 272–283. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(00)00339-2.

14. Kalvach J, Ryska O, Ryska M. Laparoskopické simulátory a jejich současný přínos pro chirurga. Rozhl Chir 2016; 95(1) :4–12.

15. Hung AJ, Patil MB, Zehnder P et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol 2012; 187(2): 630–637. doi: 10.1016/ j.juro.2011.09.154.

16. Snyder CW, Vandromme MJ, Tyra SL et al. Effects of virtual reality simulator training method and observational learning on surgical performance. World J Surg 2011; 35(2) :245–252. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0861-1.

17. Munz Y, Kumar BD, Moorthy K et al. Laparoscopic virtual reality and box trainers: is one superior to the other? Surg Endosc 2004; 18(3): 485–494. doi: 10.1007/s00464-003-9043-7.

18. von Websky MW, Vitz M, Raptis DA et al. Basic laparoscopic training using the Simbionix LAP Mentor: setting the standards in the novice group. J Surg Educ 2012; 69(4): 459–467. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.12.006.

19. C-SATS, 1110 Olive Way, Suite 1100, Seattle, WA 98101, Johnson & Johnson MedTech team [online]. Available from: http://www.csats.com.

20. Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG et al. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 2005; 190(1): 107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004.

MUDr. Alena Berková, Ph.D.

I. chirurgická klinika

LF MU a FN u sv. Anny v Brně

Pekařská 664/53

602 00 Brno

alena.berkova@fnusa.cz

ORCID autorů

Z. Chovanec 0000-0001-6605-6013

A. Berková 0000-0003-2787-0076

P. Štourač 0000-0003-1944-5926

I. Penka 0009-0008-4766-2411