Background Feedback is a pivotal cornerstone and a challenge in psychomotor training. There are different teaching methodologies; however, some may be less effective. Methods A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in 130 medical students to compare the effectiveness of the video‐guided learning (VLG), peer‐feedback (PFG) and the expert feedback (EFG) for teaching suturing skills. The program lasted 4 weeks. Students were recorded making 3‐simple stitches (pre‐assessment and post‐assessment). The primary outcome was a global scale (OSATS). The secondary outcomes were performance time, specific rating scale (SRS) and the impact of the intervention (IOI), defined as the variation between the final and initial OSATS and SRS scores. Results No significant differences were found between PFG and EFG in post‐assessment results of OSATS, SRS scores or in the IOI for OSATS and SRS scores. Post‐assessment results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in OSATS and SRS scores [(19.8 (18.5–21); 16.6 (15.5–17.5)) and (20.3 (19.88–21); 16.8 (16–17.5)) vs (15.7 (15–16); 13.3 (12.5–14)) (p < 0.05)], respectively. The results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in the IOI for OSATS [7 (4.5–9) and 7.4 (4.88–10) vs 3.5 (1.5–6) (p < 0.05)] and SRS scores [5.4 (3.5–7) and 6.3 (4–8.5) vs 3.1 (1.13–4.88) (p < 0.05)], respectively. Conclusion The video‐guided learning methodology without any kind of feedback is not enough for teaching suturing skills compared to expert or peer feedback. The peer feedback methodology appears to be a viable alternative to handling the emerging demands in medical education.

Background: A General Surgery Residency may last between 2-6 years, depending on the country. A shorter General Surgery Residency must optimize residents’ surgical exposure. Simulated surgical training is known to shorten the learning curves, but information related to how it affects a General Surgery Residency regarding clinical exposure is scarce. Aim: To analyze the effect of introducing a validated laparoscopic simulated training program in abdominal procedures performed by residents in a three-year General Surgery Residency program. Methods: A non-concurrent cohort study was designed. Four-generations (2012-2015) of graduated surgeons were included. Only abdominal procedures in which the graduated surgeons were the primary surgeon were described and analyzed. The control group was of graduated surgeons from 2012 without the laparoscopic simulated training program. Surgical procedures per program year, surgical technique, emergency/elective intervention and hospital-site (main/community hospitals) were described. Results: Interventions of 28 graduated surgeons were analyzed (control group=5; laparoscopic simulated training program=23). Graduated surgeons performed a mean of 372 abdominal procedures, with a higher mean number of medium-to-complex procedures in laparoscopic simulated training program group (48 vs. 30, p=0.02). Graduated surgeons trained with laparoscopic simulated training program performed a higher number of total abdominal procedures (384 vs. 319, p=0.04) and laparoscopic procedures (183 vs. 148, p<0.05). Conclusions: The introduction of laparoscopic simulated training program may increase the number and complexity of total and laparoscopic procedures in a three-year General Surgery Residency.

This novel laparoscopic training box presents a high-resolution image and allows training different types of advanced laparoscopic procedures. The simulator box was positively assessed by experts and demonstrated to be effective for laparoscopy training in resident surgeons.

No abstract

No abstract