The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training
Abstract
Background: This study examined the impact of virtual reality (VR) surgical simulation on improvement of psychomotor skills relevant to the performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: Sixteen surgical trainees performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patients in the operating room (OR). The participants were then randomized to receive VR training (ten repetitions of all six tasks on the Minimally Invasive Surgical Trainer—Virtual Reality (MIST-VR)) or no training. Subsequently, all subjects performed a further laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the OR. Both operative procedures were recorded on videotape, and assessed by two independent and blinded observers using predefined objective criteria. Time to complete the procedure, error score and economy of movement score were assessed during the laparoscopic procedure in the OR. Results: No differences in baseline variables were found between the two groups. Surgeons who received VR training performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy significantly faster than the control group (P = 0·021). Furthermore, those who had VR training showed significantly greater improvement in error (P = 0·003) and economy of movement (P = 0·003) scores. Conclusion: Surgeons who received VR simulator training showed significantly greater improvement in performance in the OR than those in the control group. VR surgical simulation is therefore a valid tool for training of laparoscopic psychomotor skills and could be incorporated into surgical training programmes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Teaching Surgical Skills: What Kind of Practice Makes Perfect?: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Moulton, C.-A. E., Dubrowski, A., MacRae, H., Graham, B., Grober, E., & Reznick, R. (2006) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000234808.85789.6a · Cited by 653
Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery
Nagendran, M., Gurusamy, K. S., Aggarwal, R., Loizidou, M., & Davidson, B. R. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006575.pub3 · Cited by 593
Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial
Larsen, C. R., Soerensen, J. L., Grantcharov, T. P., Dalsgaard, T., Schouenborg, L., Ottosen, C., Schroeder, T. V., & Ottesen, B. S. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b1802 · Cited by 555
Self-citationSimulation Technology for Skills Training and Competency Assessment in Medical Education
Scalese, R. J., Obeso, V. T., & Issenberg, S. B. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0283-4 · Cited by 508
Bland, K. I. (2006) · Yearbook of Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0090-3671(08)70537-8 · Cited by 367
Metadata
- Authors
- Grantcharov, T. P., Kristiansen, V. B., Bendix, J., Bardram, L., Rosenberg, J., & Funch-Jensen, P.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-01-28
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 146-150
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2005426419
- Cited by
- 1,234
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 59.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.4407
- The paper
- Grantcharov, T. P., Kristiansen, V. B., Bendix, J., Bardram, L., Rosenberg, J., & Funch-Jensen, P. (2004). Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4407
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.