Skip to main content

Metric-Based Simulation Training

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fundamentals of Surgical Simulation

Abstract

Computer-based simulation has several advantages when compared with conventional methods for surgical training. One major advantage is that the same experience or sequence of events can be replicated repeatedly. This repetition allows the trainee to learn from mistakes in a safe environment. Another benefit which is probably of equal if not more omportance is the objective feedback a trainee can receive. Since everything a trainee “does” on a computer-based simulator is essentially data, all actions can be tracked.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, et al. Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am J Surg. 2007;193(6):797-804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll SM, Kennedy AM, Traynor O, Gallagher AG. Objective assessment of surgical performance and its impact on a national selection programme of candidates for higher surgical training in plastic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(12):1543-1549.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Datta V, Chang A, Mackay S, Darzi A. The relationship between motion analysis and surgical technical assessments. Am J Surg. 2002;184(1):70-73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts PM, Peterson JR. Information capacity of discrete motor responses. J Exp Psychol. 1964;67(2):103-112.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Satava RM. Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(10):1525-1529.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher AG, Satava RM. Virtual reality as a metric for the assessment of laparoscopic psychomotor skills. Learning curves and reliability measures. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(12):1746-1752.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher AG, Richie K, McClure N, McGuigan J. Objective psychomotor skills assessment of experienced, junior, and novice laparoscopists with virtual reality. World J Surg. 2001;25(11):1478-1483.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher AG, Neary P, Gillen P, et al. Novel method for assessment and selection of trainees for higher surgical training in general surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78(4):282-290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher AG, Leonard G, Traynor OJ. Role and feasibility of psychomotor and dexterity testing in selection for surgical training. Aust N Z J Surg. 2009;79(3):108-113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knobe J. Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis. 2003;63(3):190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997;84(2):273-278.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg. 2002;236(4):458-463. discussion 463-454.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith SG, Torkington J, Brown TJ, Taffinder NJ, Darzi A. Motion analysis. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(4):640-645.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sickle K, Baghai M, Huang IP, Goldenberg A, Smith CD, Ritter EM. Construct validity of an objective assessment method for laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing and knot tying. Am J Surg. 2008a;196(1):74-80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sickle KR, Ritter EM, Baghai M, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of curriculum-based training for intracorporeal suturing and knot tying. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(4):560-568.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson T, Sahu A, Johnson DS, Turner PG. The effect of trainee involvement on procedure and list times: a statistical analysis with discussion of current issues affecting orthopaedic training in UK. Surgeon. 2010;8(1):15-19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendix: Emory VR to OR Lap. Chole. Procedure-Related Definitions for Master Study

Appendix: Emory VR to OR Lap. Chole. Procedure-Related Definitions for Master Study

Exposure

Exposure Starts: Once fundus is stable

Exposure Ends: When clip appears

Exposure Errors

Lack of Progress – Absolutely no progress is made for an entire minute. Each minute spent dealing with the consequences of a predefined error represents lack of progress and should be evaluated as such.

Burn Non-target tissue – Any application of electrocautery to nontarget tissue.

Non-target structure injury – There is a perforation or tear of a non-target structure (i.e. liver, bowel, common duct) with or without associated bleeding or bile leakage. Injury in this instance does not include electrocautery along the surface, as this would be classified as burning non-target tissue.

Instrument out of view – A dissecting instrument with cautery capability is placed outside the field of view of the telescope such that the tip is unviewable. An instrument will be considered to have cautery capabilities at the moment that cautery is applied to tissue and at all times thereafter until the instrument is changed. Hook instruments are an exception in that they are considered to always have cautery capabilities. No error will be attributed to an incident of an instrument out of view as the result of a sudden telescope movement.

Attending takeover – The supervising attending surgeon takes the dissecting instrument or retracting instrument from the resident and performs a component of the procedure. The error occurs throughout the entire period the attending has control and each interval during this period will evaluated as such. The error ends once the resident resumes control of the instrument(s).

Gallbladder injury – There is gallbladder wall perforation with or without leakage of bile.

Cystic duct injury – There is a perforation or tear of the cystic duct indicated by leakage of bile.

Cystic artery injury – There is a perforation or tear of the cystic artery indicated by hemorrhage. Scoring continues until the hemorrhage is arrested. If a clip is applied, it is applied safely and appropriately, otherwise it is considered an error for the interval it was placed.

Inappropriate dissection – Dissection is conducted such that either (1) tearing of tissue occurs during dissection within the triangle of Calot, or (2) the plane of dissection within the triangle extends to include areas along the common bile duct.

Incorrect angle of gallbladder retraction – Retraction of gallbladder is provided such that dissection proceeds within an inadequately distracted, or “closed” Triangle of Calot prior to fenestration of triangle window.

Dropped retraction – Retracted tissue is suddenly dropped. Errors are counted only if re-grasping and retraction along a similar angle are subsequently required.

Clipping/Tissue Division

Note:

  1. 1.

    Given that total clipping time may take less that 1 min, scoring intervals for this segment will be event driven. Each clip placement will be considered a separate event. Additionally the transection of the cystic artery and the cystic duct will be considered separate events.

  2. 2.

    If the cystic artery, or cystic duct are not exposed together prior to clipping and tissue division of each respective structure, the clip/tissue division evaluation will proceed for the exposed structure, followed by a continuation of the exposure evaluation until the unexposed structure is prepared (i.e. if the cystic artery is clipped prior to cystic duct exposure, the cystic artery clipping and division will be evaluated until transection of tissue occurs, then the exposure evaluation will continue until a clip designated for the cystic duct appears).

Clipping Start: The appearance of the clip

Clipping End: Once clip is placed

Tissue Division Start: The appearance of shears

Tissue Division End: Transection of tissue

General Errors (applies to both clipping and transection)

Attending takeover – The supervising attending surgeon takes the dissecting instrument or retracting instrument from the resident and performs a component of the procedure. The error occurs throughout the entire period the attending has control and each interval during this period will evaluated as such. The error ends once the resident resumes control of the instrument(s).

Clipping Application Errors

Clip overlap – Clip placed on previously placed clip.

Clip spacing error – Less than 1 mm spacing between distal porta and proximal gallbladder clips.

Poor clip orientation – Clip placed >10° from perpendicular as oriented to cystic duct or cystic artery after clip applier is removed.

Partial closure – Partial closure of cystic artery or duct (clip does not completely cross structure).

Poor Application – Clip is applied such that it is (1) incompletely closed, (2) scissored or (3) requires re-grasp manipulation.

Poor visualization – Clip applied without visualization of the tip of the clip applier.

Non-target tissue clipped – Clip applied to non-target tissue caught in closed tip outside cystic duct or cystic artery.

Clip drop – Clip comes out of clip applier prior to application. Application occurs once any part of the structure being clipped is within the jaws of the clip applier.

Tissue Division Errors

Inappropriate division – Cut less than 1 mm to nearest porta side clip.

Clip cutting – Scissors closure on clip.

Nontarget injury – Cut nontarget tissue.

Dissection

Dissection Start: Appearance of hook cautery instrument

Dissection End: Gallbladder is free from liver bed

Dissection Errors

Lack of Progress – No progress is made for an entire minute of the dissection. Each minute spent dealing with the consequences of a predefined error represents lack of progress and should be evaluated as such.

Burn Nontarget tissue – Any application of electrocautery to nontarget tissue with the exception of the final part of the fundic dissection where some current transmission may occur.

Instrument out of view – The dissecting instrument is placed outside the field of view of the telescope such that the tip is unviewable. No error will be attributed to an incident of an instrument out of view as the result of a sudden telescope movement.

Attending takeover – The supervising attending surgeon takes the dissecting instrument or retracting instrument from the resident and performs a component of the procedure. The error occurs throughout the entire period the attending has control and each interval during this period will evaluated as such. The error ends once the resident resumes control of the instrument(s).

Gallbladder injury – There is gallbladder wall perforation with or without leakage of bile.

Liver injury – There is liver capsule and parenchyma penetration, or capsule stripping with or without associated bleeding.

Incorrect plane of dissection – The dissection is conducted outside the recognized plane between the gallbladder and the liver (i.e. in the submucosal plane on the gallbladder, or subcapsular plane on the liver).

Tearing tissue – Uncontrolled tearing of tissue with the dissecting or retracting instrument.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gallagher, A.G., O’Sullivan, G.C., O’Sullivan, G.C. (2011). Metric-Based Simulation Training. In: Fundamentals of Surgical Simulation. Improving Medical Outcome - Zero Tolerance. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-763-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-763-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-762-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-763-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics