Randomly Alternating Image Presentation During Laparoscopic Training Leads to Faster Automation to the “Fulcrum Effect”

Background and Study Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate four training programmes intended to help laparoscopic surgeons automate to the “fulcrum effect”.

Methods: A total of 32 participants (16 men, 16 women), were randomly assigned to one of four different image-viewing conditions: full binocular, y-axis inverted, normal laparoscopic and randomly alternating (between y-axis-inverted and normal laparoscopic). The subjects were requested to perform 10 trials of a simple laparoscopic cutting task, each lasting 2 minutes. Each then completed a 2-minute test under normal laparoscopic imaging conditions.

Results: In the final test trial, participants who trained under the randomly alternating imaging conditions (y-axis inverted and normal laparoscopic) performed significantly better than those from the other groups.

Conclusion: Training under a randomly alternating viewing condition helps laparoscopic trainees automate to the “fulcrum effect” faster.

References

• 1 Reinhardt-Rutland AH, Gallagher AG. Visual depth perception in minimally invasive surgery. In: Robertson SA (ed). Contemporary Ergonomics.  London; Taylor & Francis, 1996
• 2 Wenzi R, Lehner R, Vry U, et al. Three-dimensional video-endoscopy: clinical use in gynaecological laparoscopy.  Lancet. 1994;  344 1621-1622
• 3 Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, et al. An ergonomic analysis of the “fulcrum effect” in endoscopic skill acquisition.  Endoscopy. 1998;  30 617-620
• 4 Crothers I, Gallagher AG, McClure N, et al. Experienced surgeons are automated to the “fulcrum effect”; an ergonomic demonstration.  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 365-369
• 5 Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, et al. Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery; a preliminary assessment of minimally invasive surgical trainer-virtual reality (MIST VR).  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 310-313
• 6 Smith KU, and Wargo L. Sensory-feedback analysis of specialisation of movements in learning.  Percept Motor Skills. 1963;  16 749-756
• 7 Peters JH, Ellison EC, Innes JT, et al. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Ann Surg. 1991;  312 3-12
• 8 Wherry DC, Rob CG, Marohn MR, et al. An external audit of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in the medical treatment facilities of the department of defence.  Ann Surg. 1994;  220 626-634
• 9 The Southern Surgeons' Club. The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Am J Surg. 1995;  170 55-59
• 10 Cagir B, Ragraji M, Maffuci L, et al. The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  J Laparosc Surg. 1994;  4 419-427
• 11 Gibson HB. Manual of the Gibson Spiral Maze. 2nd edition . Hatfield; Hodder & Stoughton, 1970
• 12 Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness; the Edinburgh inventory.  Neuropsychologicia. 1971;  9 97-113
• 13 Gibson EJ. Principles of perceptual learning and development.  New York; Appleton Century Crofts, 1969
• 14 Cratty BJ. Movement behaviour and motor learning.  Philadelphia; Lea & Febiger, 1973
• 15 Cuschieri A. Reflections on surgical training.  Surg Endosc. 1993;  7 73-74