Our Early Experience Concerning an Assessment of Laparoscopy Training Systems

Klempous, Ryszard; Rozenblit, Jerzy W.; Kluwak, Konrad; Nikodem, Jan; Patkowski, Dariusz; Gerus, Sylwester; Palczewski, Mateusz; Kiełbowicz, Zdzisław; Wytyczak-Partyka, Andrzej

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74727-9_44

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Laparoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive method of surgery with advantages over conventional techniques, including a reduction in blood loss, post-operative pain, and incision scars (Klempous et al, 2018). Since laparoscopic tools are inserted through a small cavity, surgeons have reduced or altered tactile-sensation, limited degrees of freedom of movement, and indirect vision during a laparoscopic procedure (Gallagher & O'Sullivan, 2012;Spruit, Kleijweg, Band, & Hamming, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Unilateral Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Unimanual Laparoscopic Peg-Transfer Task

Hadi

Umbreen²,

Anwar³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Efficient training methods are required for laparoscopic surgical skills training to reduce the time needed for proficiency. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is widely used to enhance motor skill acquisition and can be used to supplement the training of laparoscopic surgical skill acquisition. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) on the performance of a unimanual variant of the laparoscopic peg-transfer task. Methods: Fifteen healthy subjects participated in this randomized, double-blinded crossover study involving an anodal tDCS and a sham tDCS intervention separated by 48 hours. On each intervention day, subjects performed a unimanual variant of laparoscopic peg-transfer task in three sessions (baseline, tDCS, post-tDCS). The tDCS session consisted of 10 minutes of offline tDCS followed by 10 minutes of online tDCS. The scores based on the task completion time and the number of errors in each session were used as a primary outcome measure. A linear mixed-effects model was used for the analysis. Results: We found that the scores increased over sessions (p<0.001). However, we found no effects of stimulation (anodal tDCS vs. sham tDCS) and no interaction of stimulation and sessions. Conclusion: This study suggests that irrespective of the type of current stimulation (anodal and sham) over M1, there was an improvement in the performance of the unimanual peg-transfer task, implying that there was motor learning over time. The results would be useful in designing efficient training paradigms and further investigating the effects of tDCS on laparoscopic peg-transfer tasks.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%