Homemade Trainer Research Articles

Training minimally invasive surgery's basic skills: is expensive always better?

Not all hospitals have a MIS training facility because often training is not a main corporate objective and could require lots of money. We tried to build a laparoscopic simulator that was effective and that would allow to carry out an adequate laparoscopic training similar to that obtained with the models normally used in MIS training programs. To construct a box trainer that would achieve the equivalent results than those usually used. A validation study was carried out by evaluating the content validity and construct validity of our simulator in addition a comparison study of our homemade trainer vs Karl Storz box trainer was performed. The HM laparoscopic trainer was assembled using a wood frame. Two LED lights were positioned on the inside roof of the trainer and a webcam was positioned through a special support as operative optic. The webcam was then connected to a PC and the latter was used as a monitor for the operator. Participants were 20 students and a group of 6 surgeons. Students were prospectively randomized to perform 4 of the 5 tasks of the fundamental laparoscopic surgery (FLS) program on both the HM trainer and the KS trainer (pegboard transfer, pattern cut, placement of ligating loop and intracorporeal knot suture). Simple paired t test was performed to compare times between the trainers. Then students performed two more sets of exercises on the HM. The group of surgeons performed three sets of the same exercises performed by the students on the HM. The time taken by surgeons and students to complete the exercises was compared using t test. At the end, all the participants carried out a questionnaire to evaluate their experience with the HM box trainer. For the questionnaire it was chosen to use a Linkert 1-5 scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). HM vs KS BT: Comparing time to complete the 4 tasks performed by students on both the BT, for the first task the p value was 0.30, for the second task 0.48, for the third task 0.80, for the fourth task 0.93, and for the total time 0.86. The comparison between the mean time of the first set of tasks of the participants who started with the HM BT and one of the participants who started on the KS p value was 1 p = 0.09; task 2 p = 0.32; task 3 p = 0.62; task 4 p = 0.32; total time p = 0.81. The comparison between the meantime of the second set of tasks of the participants who switched to the HM BT with the one of those who switched to the KS BT showed a p value of: p = 0.20 tasks 1 p = 0.53 task 2; p = 0.39 task 3; p = 0.30 task 4; p = 0.56 total time. Construct validity: The mean experts and students time of every single task and the total one showed a p value of: p < 0.01 for task 1; p < 0.01 task 2; p < 0.01 task 3; p < 0.01 task 4; p < 0.01 total time. Content validity: Both experts and students indicated the HM BT as a useful training tool and appreciated its easy use. Both groups would use it at home if it were available. Valid MIS trainer can be easily built at home with few low-cost materials. Our study shows how training programs can be structured even with few resources in a creative and innovative way.

Validation Study of a Portable Home Trainer Using a Pad for Laparoscopic Practice.

The aim of this study was to describe and validate a homemade laparoscopic trainer. The abdominal cavity is simulated within a 3-mm-thick stainless steel model. Thirty-four participants were evaluated in a pilot study to validate our model. Participants were divided into experts (n = 19) and novices (n = 15) to perform basic and complex laparoscopic skills. The comparison between the homemade trainer (HT) and the standard laparoscopic trainer showed no significant differences for the 2 tasks performed for each group ( P > .05). The experts' performance of the 2 tasks was statistically different from the novices ( P < .05) on both trainers. Both experts (84%) and novices (87%) approved the HT as an effective home trainer. Our HT seems to fulfill the conditions of performing the basic and complex laparoscopic psychomotor skills at a low cost and similar efficiency.

Homemade laparoscopic simulators for surgical trainees

Laparoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular in recent times. Laparoscopic skills and dexterity can be improved by using simulators. We provide a step-by-step guide with diagrams to build an individual homemade laparoscopic trainer box, which is easily available and affordable. We collected the required material for our homemade trainer box from a local DIY shop and purchased a high-definition (HD) webcam online. We used a 12-litre plastic storage box and mounted the webcam inside the lid of the plastic box. The ultraslim energy-saving fluorescent light was mounted behind the webcam. Holes were made in the plastic lid and patched with circular pieces of Neoprene to accommodate the insertion of laparoscopic instruments. The trainer box can be built in 3 hours. The trainer box weighs 1.2 kg with a light source, and is easily portable. It was demonstrated to a cohort of surgical trainees and they were very receptive, and liked the idea of an easy to assemble, low-cost trainer box with high-quality images. Our homemade trainer box offers HD vision that can be viewed on a personal computer, and the webcam is adjustable so it gives hands-free stability. It is built with a lightweight plastic box so it can be easily carried around by a trainee. This simple, inexpensive, easy-to-build trainer box makes a perfect solution for individuals who want to practise basic laparoscopic skills at home or in the workplace.

LAPAROSCOPIC SKILLS TRAINING USING A WEBCAM TRAINER

Many sophisticated and expensive trainers have been developed to assist surgeons in learning basic laparoscopic skills. We developed an inexpensive trainer and evaluated its effectiveness. The webcam laparoscopic training device is composed of a webcam, cardboard box, desk lamp and home computer. This homemade trainer was evaluated against 2 commercially available systems, namely the video Pelvitrainer (Karl Storz Endoscopy, Culver City, California) and the dual mirror Simuview (Simulab Corp., Seattle, Washington). The Pelvitrainer consists of a fiberglass box, single lens optic laparoscope, fiberoptic light source, endoscopic camera and video monitor, while the Simuview trainer uses 2 offset, facing mirrors and an uncovered plastic box. A total of 42 participants without prior laparoscopic training were enrolled in the study and asked to execute 2 tasks, that is peg transfer and pattern cutting. Participants were randomly assigned to 6 groups with each group representing a different permutation of trainers to be used. The time required for participants to complete each task was recorded and differences in performance were calculated. Paired t tests, the Wilcoxon signed rank test and ANOVA were performed to analyze the statistical difference in performance times for all conditions. Statistical analyses of the 2 tasks showed no significant difference for the video and webcam trainers. However, the mirror trainer gave significantly higher outcome values for tasks 1 and 2 compared to the video (p = 0.01 and <0.01) and webcam (p = 0.04 and <0.01, respectively) methods. ANOVA indicated no overall difference for tasks 1 and 2 across the orderings (p = 0.36 and 0.99, respectively). However, by attempt 3 the time required to complete the skill tests decreased significantly for all 3 trainers (each p <0.01). Our homemade webcam system is comparable in function to the more elaborate video trainer but superior to the dual mirror trainer. For novice laparoscopists we believe that the webcam system is an inexpensive and effective laparoscopic training device. Furthermore, the webcam system also allows instant recording and review of techniques.