TY - JOUR

T1 - No difference between using short and long intervals for distributed proficiency-based laparoscopy simulator training

T2 - a randomized trial

AU - Tang, Diana Hai Yen

AU - Østdal, Theresa Bruun

AU - Vamadevan, Anishan

AU - Konge, Lars

AU - Houlind, Kim

AU - Stadeager, Morten

AU - Bjerrum, Flemming

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s).

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - Background: Simulation-based training is increasingly used to acquire basic laparoscopic skills. Multiple factors can influence training, e.g., distributed practice is superior to massed practice in terms of efficiency. However, the optimal interval between training sessions is unclear. The objective of this trial was to investigate if shorter intervals between sessions are more efficient than longer intervals during proficiency-based laparoscopy simulator training. Methods: A randomized simulation-based trial where medical students (n = 39) were randomized to proficiency-based training with either 1–2 days (intervention group) or 6–8 days (control group) between training sessions. Both groups practiced a series of basic tasks and a procedural module until proficiency level on the LapSim® simulator. Both groups were given instructor feedback upon request. After reaching proficiency, participants were invited back for a retention test 3–5 weeks later and practiced the same tasks to proficiency again. Results: The mean time to reach proficiency during training was 291 (SD 89) and 299 (SD 89) min in the intervention and control group, respectively (p = 0.81). During the retention test, the mean time to reach proficiency was 94 (SD 53) and 96 (SD 39) minutes in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p = 0.91). Conclusion: We found no difference whether practicing with shorter intervals or longer intervals between training sessions when examining time to proficiency or retention.

AB - Background: Simulation-based training is increasingly used to acquire basic laparoscopic skills. Multiple factors can influence training, e.g., distributed practice is superior to massed practice in terms of efficiency. However, the optimal interval between training sessions is unclear. The objective of this trial was to investigate if shorter intervals between sessions are more efficient than longer intervals during proficiency-based laparoscopy simulator training. Methods: A randomized simulation-based trial where medical students (n = 39) were randomized to proficiency-based training with either 1–2 days (intervention group) or 6–8 days (control group) between training sessions. Both groups practiced a series of basic tasks and a procedural module until proficiency level on the LapSim® simulator. Both groups were given instructor feedback upon request. After reaching proficiency, participants were invited back for a retention test 3–5 weeks later and practiced the same tasks to proficiency again. Results: The mean time to reach proficiency during training was 291 (SD 89) and 299 (SD 89) min in the intervention and control group, respectively (p = 0.81). During the retention test, the mean time to reach proficiency was 94 (SD 53) and 96 (SD 39) minutes in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p = 0.91). Conclusion: We found no difference whether practicing with shorter intervals or longer intervals between training sessions when examining time to proficiency or retention.

KW - Distributed

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Massed

KW - Proficiency

KW - Simulation

KW - Spaced

KW - Training

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-023-10522-y

DO - 10.1007/s00464-023-10522-y

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 37993677

AN - SCOPUS:85177576043

VL - 38

SP - 300

EP - 305

JO - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

JF - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

SN - 0930-2794

ER -