Master and Apprentice or a Slave to Technology? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimal Access Surgery...

This study set out to assess the efficacy of three different approaches to simulation-based minimal access surgery (MAS) training using a three-dimensional printed neonatal thoracoscopic simulator and a virtual simulator. Randomized controlled trial of medical students (N = 32), as novices to MAS. The participants performed two construct validated tasks on a thoracoscopic simulator and were then randomly allocated into four intervention groups: (1) three consultant-led sessions on a thoracoscopic simulator; (2) three self-directed learning sessions on the same simulator; (3) self-directed "virtual training" on the "SimuSurg" application; and (4) control. Postintervention participants repeated both tasks. Videos of all task attempts were de-identified and marked by a blinded consultant pediatric surgeon. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) scores or demographics in any group. For the "ring transfer" task, Groups 1 and 2 showed significant improvement after intervention, with no significant change in Groups 3 or 4. There was no significant difference between Groups 1 or 2 in postintervention scores. For the "needle pass" task, no group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement after intervention. Practice on a physical simulator either consultant-led or self-directed led to improved scores for MAS novices compared with a virtual simulator or no intervention for a simple "ring transfer" task. This suggests that time on the physical simulator was the most important factor and implies that trainees could usefully practice simple tasks at their convenience rather than require consultant supervision. This improvement is not seen in more challenging tasks such as the "needle pass."