The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Teaching Surgical Skills: What Kind of Practice Makes Perfect?: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Open accessAbstract
In Brief Objective: Surgical skills laboratories have become an important venue for early skill acquisition. The principles that govern training in this novel educational environment remain largely unknown; the commonest method of training, especially for continuing medical education (CME), is a single multihour event. This study addresses the impact of an alternative method, where learning is distributed over a number of training sessions. The acquisition and transfer of a new skill to a life-like model is assessed. Methods: Thirty-eight junior surgical residents, randomly assigned to either massed (1 day) or distributed (weekly) practice regimens, were taught a new skill (microvascular anastomosis). Each group spent the same amount of time in practice. Performance was assessed pretraining, immediately post-training, and 1 month post-training. The ultimate test of anastomotic skill was assessed with a transfer test to a live, anesthetized rat. Previously validated computer-based and expert-based outcome measures were used. In addition, clinically relevant outcomes were assessed. Results: Both groups showed immediate improvement in performance, but the distributed group performed significantly better on the retention test in most outcome measures (time, number of hand movements, and expert global ratings; all P values <0.05). The distributed group also outperformed the massed group on the live rat anastomosis in all expert-based measures (global ratings, checklist score, final product analysis, competency for OR; all P values <0.05). Conclusions: Our current model of training surgical skills using short courses (for both CME and structured residency curricula) may be suboptimal. Residents retain and transfer skills better if taught in a distributed manner. Despite the greater logistical challenge, we need to restructure training schedules to allow for distributed practice. Methods of teaching surgical skills in the laboratory setting need evaluation. This study assessed the impact of training delivered in 1 session (massed practice) versus training interspersed with periods of rest (distributed practice). Validated outcome measures used to assess residents' performance revealed superiority of distributed practice over massed practice both in terms of retention and transfer of surgical skill.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The spacing effect has obvious implications for students and instructors alike, as learning and retention can potentially be optimized by appropriately spacing study sessions and course material over time.15,48”
From Sleep Restriction Impairs Vocabulary Learning when Adolescents Cram for Exams: The Need for Sleep Study (2016) · cites this paper as [48]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 653
Metadata
- Authors
- Moulton, C.-A. E., Dubrowski, A., MacRae, H., Graham, B., Grober, E., & Reznick, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 244
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 400-409
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC1856544
- OpenAlex
- W1977807688
- Cited by
- 653
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 46
- FWCI
- 18.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Keywords
- surgical skills training, distributed practice, massed practice, microvascular anastomosis, skill retention, skill transfer, surgical residents, continuing medical education, surgical skills laboratory, skill acquisition
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Male, Models, Theoretical, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Rats
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