Search

Context: Current literature demonstrates a lack of comparative studies regarding effective techniques for reducing laparoscopic lens fogging. Aim: Our primary objective is to determine the efficacy of various laparoscopic defogging techniques (LDT) through a randomized controlled trial that employs a novel simulation model of the abdominopelvic cavity. Settings and Design: This study was conducted at academic community hospital. This study design was a randomized controlled trial through simulation. Subjects and Methods: A chamber was constructed that simulated the abdominopelvic cavity. We used 5 and 10 mm 0° laparoscopes. A 10 cm visual analog scale was developed to assign visual clarity (VC) scores. The 10 cm mark indicated perfect VC. We employed the following LDTs: (1) glove warming (GLOVE), (2) surfactant solution (Fog Reduction and Elimination Device [FRED]), (3) chlorhexidine solution (SOAP), (4) warm saline (SALINE), and (5) control. Three observers were blinded to the LDT used. Primary outcomes included VC scores at designated time intervals (5, 30, and 60 s) for each LDT. A minimum of 10 observations per time interval were required to achieve adequate power based on a 2.5 cm difference in VC scores. Results: For the 10 mm laparoscope, FRED, SOAP, and SALINE had a VC score at 60 s (VC60) higher than control (4.8 ± 2.2, 7.8 ± 0.8, 7.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.4 ± 0.72, P < 0.05). Both SOAP and SALINE VC60 scores were higher than FRED (7.8 ± 0.8, 7.9 ± 0.7 vs. 4.8 ± 2.2, P < 0.05). No differences were noted in VC60 scores between control and GLOVE (2.4 ± 0.72 vs. 3.1 ± 2.2, P > 0.05) and between SOAP and SALINE (7.8 ± 0.8 vs. 7.9 ± 0.7, P > 0.05). Similar results were noted with the 5 mm laparoscope. Conclusions: Common LDTs such as SALINE and SOAP were more effective than FRED, while GLOVE was no different than control. These results demonstrate that the use of effective LDTs can potentially translate into improved patient care and operative outcomes during surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High-volume and fellowship-trained surgeons have superior outcomes. However, in gynecology, a large proportion of cases are performed by low-volume surgeons. Simulation has been shown to be useful in assessing surgical skill and may be a useful tool in hospital credentialing and maintenance of privileges.Objective: To determine the correlation between a surgical case volume and fellowship training with performance on simulated procedural tasks.Study Design: A total of 108 obstetricians and gynecologists with laparoscopic privileges at 2 academic institutions completed a pre-test survey and performed 3 tasks on the LapSim laparoscopic virtual reality simulator. The pre-test survey inquired about the monthly laparoscopic case volume and prior training. Simulations included a basic skills task (peg transfer) followed by a procedural task (salpingectomy) of 2 difficulty levels (low and moderate). Spearman correlation and Wilcoxon tests were used to determine correlations between the survey responses and performance metrics.Results: Participants included 67 generalists (62%) and 41 fellowship-trained specialists (38%). There was an observed weak correlation among surgical volume (more than 6 cases per month), time to completion, and the amount of blood loss when performing the low-difficulty level salpingectomy (r=-0.32, P=.0007 and r=-0.29, P=.002, respectively). The economy of movement (instrument path length) was correlated to high surgical volume (r=-0.35, P=.0002). Compared with generalists, surgeons with fellowship training performed tasks faster (410.8 seconds [interquartile range, 309.7-595.2]) vs 530.2 seconds (interquartile range, 406.2-605.0; P=.0009), more efficiently at 6.1 m (interquartile range, 4.8-7.3) vs 8.1 m (interquartile range, 5.8-10.7; P=.0003), and with less blood loss at 21.7 mL (interquartile range, 11.8-37.7) vs 42.9 mL (interquartile range, 18.1-70.6; P=.002). Regarding the case volume and fellowship background, there was no difference in ovarian diathermy damage. In addition, there was no difference among most performance parameters for the peg transfer task and the moderate-difficulty salpingectomy procedure.Conclusion: Surgical experience obtained through higher case volume and fellowship training correlate with higher performance scores during simulated procedural tasks. In a previous study, we found a similar correlation with simulated basic skills tasks. The current study is a continuation of an ongoing quality initiative to establish a summative assessment of laparoscopic surgical skills using virtual reality simulator for the maintenance of credentials among obstetrical and gynecologic surgeons. Future studies will compare the performance metrics from laparoscopic procedures performed on virtual reality simulator with the performance in the operating room and clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]