The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Simulator Training for Laparoscopic Suturing Using Performance Goals Translates to the Operating Room
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to develop a performance-based laparoscopic suturing curriculum using simulators and to test the effectiveness (transferability) of the curriculum. STUDY DESIGN: Surgical residents (PGY1 to PGY5, n = 17) proficient in basic skills, but with minimal laparoscopic suturing experience, were enrolled in an IRB-approved, randomized controlled protocol. Subjects viewed an instructional video and were pretested on a live porcine laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication model by placing three gastrogastric sutures tied in an intracorporeal fashion. A blinded rater objectively scored each knot based on a previously published formula (600 minus completion time [sec] minus penalties for accuracy and knot integrity errors). Subjects were stratified according to pretest scores and randomized. The trained group practiced on a videotrainer suturing model until an expert-derived proficiency score (512) was achieved on 12 attempts. The control group received no training. Both the trained and control groups were posttested on the porcine Nissen model. RESULTS: For the training group, mean time to demonstrate simulator proficiency was 151 minutes (range 107 to 224 minutes) and mean number of attempts was 37 (range 24 to 51 attempts). Both the trained and control groups demonstrated significant improvement in overall score from baseline. But the trained group performed significantly better than the control group at posttesting (389 +/- 70 versus 217 +/- 140, p < 0.001), confirming curriculum effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that training to a predetermined expert level on a videotrainer suture model provides trainees with skills that translate into improved operative performance. Such curricula should be further developed and implemented as a means of ensuring proficiency.
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
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Cohen, E. R., Barsuk, J. H., & Wayne, D. B. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e318217e119 · Cited by 1,866
Bland, K. I. (2006) · Yearbook of Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0090-3671(08)70537-8 · Cited by 367
Evaluating the impact of simulation on translational patient outcomes
McGaghie, W. C., Draycott, T. J., Dunn, W. F., Lopez, C. M., & Stefanidis, D. (2011) · Simulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0b013e318222fde9 · Cited by 336
Self-citationYurko, Y. Y., Scerbo, M. W., Prabhu, A. S., Acker, C. E., & Stefanidis, D. (2010) · Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0b013e3181e3f329 · Cited by 328
Self-citationVirtual Reality in Psychological, Medical and Pedagogical Applications
(2012) · doi:10.5772/2607 · Cited by 103
“A larger sample size of N= 88 persons with public speaking anxiety was used in a RCT that compared the effectiveness of CBT, VR and CBT combined, and a waitlist control condition [51].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Korndorffer, J. R., Dunne, J. B., Sierra, R., Stefanidis, D., Touchard, C. L., & Scott, D. J.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons
- Published
- 2005-07
- Volume
- 201
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-29
- ISSN
- 1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1983790524
- Cited by
- 420
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.18
- 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: Simulator Training for Laparoscopic Suturing Using Performance Goals Translates to the Operating Room. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.02.021
- The paper
- Korndorffer, J. R., Dunne, J. B., Sierra, R., Stefanidis, D., Touchard, C. L., & Scott, D. J. (2005). Simulator Training for Laparoscopic Suturing Using Performance Goals Translates to the Operating Room. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.02.021
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.