A Simple Cost-Effective Design for Construction of a Laparoscopic Trainer

Ricchiuti, Daniel; Ralat, Dane Arends; Evancho-Chapman, Michelle; Wyneski, Holly; Cerone, Jeffrey; Wegryn, John D.

doi:10.1089/end.2005.19.1000

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instruments could then be inserted directly into the cavity or through a trocar. Use of a flexible covering material, such as neoprene [13, 18], and ring reinforcement around the port site [13, 32–35] were also described as methods to increase simulator authenticity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of low-cost laparoscopic simulators

George

2016

Surg Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOpportunities for surgical skills practice using high-fidelity simulation in the workplace are limited due to cost, time and geographical constraints, and accessibility to junior trainees. An alternative is needed to practise laparoscopic skills at home. Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of low-cost laparoscopic simulators.MethodA systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE/EMBASE was searched for articles between 1990 and 2014. We included articles describing portable and low-cost laparoscopic simulators that were ready-made or suitable for assembly; articles not in English, with inadequate descriptions of the simulator, and costs >£1500 were excluded. Validation, equipment needed, cost, and ease of assembly were examined.ResultsSeventy-three unique simulators were identified (60 non-commercial, 13 commercial); 55 % (33) of non-commercial trainers were subject to at least one type of validation compared with 92 % (12) of commercial trainers. Commercial simulators had better face validation compared with non-commercial. The cost ranged from £3 to £216 for non-commercial and £60 to £1007 for commercial simulators. Key components of simulator construction were identified as abdominal cavity and wall, port site, light source, visualisation, and camera monitor. Laptop computers were prerequisite where direct vision was not used. Non-commercial models commonly utilised retail off-the-shelf components, which allowed reduction in costs and greater ease of construction.ConclusionThe models described provide simple and affordable options for self-assembly, although a significant proportion have not been subject to any validation. Portable simulators may be the most equitable solution to allow regular basic skills practice (e.g. suturing, knot-tying) for junior surgical trainees.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of low-cost laparoscopic simulators

George

2016

Surg Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4,5 In addition, portable laparoscopic trainers are inexpensive and some can even be homemade. 6,9 Our study is the first to investigate and validate the TASKit trainer as another low-cost alternative for laparoscopic training.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Portable Laparoscopic Trainer with a Standardized Trainer in Surgically Naïve Subjects

Nakamura

Martin

Fox

et al. 2012

Journal of Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, the more affordable systems reported for less than $100 were constructed using cardboard boxes 15,16 that may not be particularly durable; the plastic-based designs are more costly at a minimum of $275 (excluding video equipment). 17,18 Some homemade trainers have been assessed for evidence of content and criterion validity, but none have been evaluated for either construct or predictive validity. 16,18,19 Construct validity is determined by the ability to reliably distinguish different degrees of expertise on the basis of objective scoring of performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%