This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Influence of visual force feedback on tissue handling in minimally invasive surgery. BJS 2014; 101: 1766-1773.
Published: 21st October 2014
Authors: S. P. Rodrigues, T. Horeman, P. Sam, J. Dankelman, J. J. van den Dobbelsteen, F.‐W. Jansen et al.
Background
Force feedback might improve surgical performance during minimally invasive surgery. This study sought to determine whether training with force feedback shortened the tissue‐handling learning curve, and examined the influence of real‐time visual feedback compared with postprocessing feedback.
Method
Medical students without experience of minimally invasive surgery were randomized into three groups: real‐time force feedback, postprocessing force feedback and no force feedback (control). All performed eight suturing tasks consecutively, of which the first and eighth were the premeasurement and postmeasurement tasks respectively (no feedback). Depending on randomization, either form of feedback was given during the second to seventh task. Time, mean force non‐zero and maximum force were measured with a force sensor. Results of the groups were compared with one‐way
Results
A total of 72 students took part. Both intervention groups used significantly lower interaction forces than the control group during the knot‐tying phase of the postmeasurement task and improved their interaction forces significantly during the knot‐tying phase. The form of feedback did not influence its effectiveness.
Conclusion
The tissue‐handling skills of medical students improved significantly when they were given force feedback of their performance. This effect was seen mainly during the knot‐tying phase of the suturing task.
Full textYou may also be interested in
Leading article
Authors: C. Chamberlain, J. M. Blazeby
Original article
Authors: S. J. Chapman, R. C. Grossman, M. E. B. FitzPatrick, R. R. W. Brady
Systematic review
Authors: H. K. James, A. W. Chapman, G. T. R. Pattison, D. R. Griffin, J. D. Fisher
Systematic review
Authors: J. H. H. Olsen, S. Öberg, K. Andresen, T. W. Klausen, J. Rosenberg
Original article
Authors: L. Heylen, J. Pirenne, U. Samuel, I. Tieken, M. Coemans, M. Naesens et al.
Original article
Authors: L. Cairncross, H. A. Snow, D. C. Strauss, M. J. F. Smith, O. Sjokvist, C. Messiou et al.
Original article
Authors: R. J. Dinsdale, J. Hazeldine, K. Al Tarrah, P. Hampson, A. Devi, C. Ermogenous et al.
Original article
Authors: C. A. Sewalt, E. Venema, E. J. A. Wiegers, F. E. Lecky, S. C. E. Schuit, D. den Hartog et al.
Article
Authors: A. M Lacy, R. Bravo, A. M. Otero‐Piñeiro, R. Pena, F. B. De Lacy, R. Menchaca et al.
Original article
Authors: P. Ghorbani, T. Troëng, O. Brattström, K. G. Ringdal, T. Eken, A. Ekbom et al.
Original article
Authors: E. H. Wright, M. Tyler, B. Vojnovic, J. Pleat, A. Harris, D. Furniss et al.
Original article
Authors: N. Patel, R. J. Egan, B. R. Carter, D. M. Scott‐Coombes, M. J. Stechman, A. Afzaal et al.