Search

Background: Previous studies using simulation-based curricula have focused largely on technical skills. We developed a set of simulation-based modules that focus on intraoperative decision making. The objective of this study was to conduct a faculty evaluation of: (1) the usefulness of 4 newly developed, simulation-based modules; (2) the curricular need to train and assess intraoperative decision making skills of the residents; and (3) potential for resident benefit. Methods: Simulation-based modules were developed using a cognitive task analysis (CTA) framework. The CTA framework involved faculty interviews focusing on 4 operative tasks that span a range of complexity: (1) creation of small and large bowel stoma, (2) laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, (3) pancreaticojejunostomy, and (4) lymph node biopsy during a mediastinoscopy. An experienced psychologist conducted task-specific, one-on-one interviews with fellowship-trained specialists who perform these operations in their practice. Two faculty were interviewed for each procedure. The interviews lasted a minimum of 1 hour and focused on critical decisions, error prevention, error recognition, and error rescue strategies. The coded interview summaries were used as development guides for the simulation-based learning modules. Each module included locally developed physical models for the simulated operative tasks combined with oral and paper-based questions. The physical models were fabricated in such a way that simulated operative tasks could be performed using standard surgical instruments. To assess the newly developed simulation-based modules, 8 volunteer faculty (50% overlap with the interview pool) participated in a simulation-based exercise during a one-on-one session and then completed an 8-item survey cast on a 5-point Likert agreement scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). One of the items was worded negatively to ensure internal consistency. An independent observer recorded faculty session times and assessed faculty engagement in the task (1 = not engaged, 5 = extremely engaged). Results: On average, faculty spent 60 minutes completing each simulation-based exercise. Over 80% of this time was spent performing the operative tasks as they would during a real-life procedure. Mean engagement rating was 4.9 (maximum 5.0, SD = 0.3). Survey results show strong agreement on the importance of training and assessing intraoperative decision making, and that residents would likely benefit from the simulation-based modules. Conclusion: We developed 4 high-fidelity simulation-based modules to assess intraoperative decision making. Faculty agree strongly on the importance and need for additional modules. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Minimally invasive liver surgery is a rapidly advancing field with demonstrated applicability to living donation. In this paper, we compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy (LADRH) to open donor right hepatectomy (ODRH). Methods: We performed a retrospective, comparative analysis of 33 LADRH to the most recent 33 ODRH performed at our institution, evaluating donor complications, costs, and recipient outcomes. Results: Donor demographics including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and vascular and biliary anomalies were comparable. Donor complication rates were equivalent for LADRH and ODRH. Donor operative times were shorter for LADRH (LADRH 265 minutes, ODRH 316; P < .001) even after adjusting for BMI. Blood loss and length of stay were comparable. Additionally, total hospitalization costs were equivalent (LADRH $1.11, ODRH $1.00; P = .19). Higher operative supply costs for LADRH were balanced by higher time-based operative costs for ODRH resulting in no significant differences in total operative costs. Finally, there were no differences in graft size, recipient patient or graft survival, or recipient vascular or biliary complications. Conclusion: Our experience suggests that LADRH compares favorably with ODRH with equivalent safety, resource utilization, and effectiveness. We believe that LADRH provides potential physical and psychological benefits without an adverse effect on outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]