Didactic Benefits of Surgery on Body Donors during Live Surgery Events in Minimally Invasive Surgery
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Format of the Live Surgery Event
2.2. Laparoscopy on Real Patients
2.3. Laparoscopy on Body Donor
2.4. Demonstration of Pre-Dissected Anatomical Specimens
2.5. Evaluation
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Data
3.2. Value of Live Surgery Events Performed on Real Patients
3.3. Value of Live Surgery Events Performed on Body Donors
3.4. Integration of Body Donors and Pre-Dissected Anatomical Specimens into Live Surgery Events
3.5. Subgroup Analysis of the Evaluation
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Marom, A. The Birth, Death, and Renaissance (?) of Dissection: A Critique of Anatomy Teaching With—or Without—the Human Body. Acad. Med. 2019, 95, 999–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramsey-Stewart, G.; Burgess, A.W.; Hill, D.A. Back to the future: Teaching anatomy by whole-body dissection. Med. J. Aust. 2010, 193, 668–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scott, D.J.; Cendan, J.C.; Pugh, C.M.; Minter, R.M.; Dunnington, G.L.; Kozar, R.A. The changing face of surgical education: Simulation as the new paradigm. J. Surg. Res. 2008, 147, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sadideen, H.; Kneebone, R. Practical skills teaching in contemporary surgical education: How can educational theory be applied to promote effective learning? Am. J. Surg. 2012, 204, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elessawy, M.; Wewer, A.; Guenther, V.; Heilmann, T.; Eckmann-Scholz, C.; Schem, C.; Maass, N.; Noe, K.G.; Mettler, L.; Alkatout, I. Validation of psychomotor tasks by Simbionix LAP Mentor simulator and identifying the target group. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied. Technol. 2017, 26, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mota, P.; Carvalho, N.; Carvalho-Dias, E.; Joao Costa, M.; Correia-Pinto, J.; Lima, E. Video-Based Surgical Learning: Improving Trainee Education and Preparation for Surgery. J. Surg. Educ. 2018, 75, 828–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Elessawy, M.; Skrzipczyk, M.; Eckmann-Scholz, C.; Maass, N.; Mettler, L.; Guenther, V.; van Mackelenbergh, M.; Bauerschlag, D.O.; Alkatout, I. Integration and Validation of Hysteroscopy Simulation in the Surgical Training Curriculum. J. Surg. Educ. 2017, 74, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elessawy, M.; Schneekloth, S.; Günther, V.; Maass, N.; Mettler, L.; Alkatout, I. Postoperative Telephone-Based Questionnaire on Quality of Life after Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy versus Conventional Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Evans, T.; Anand, S.; Boufford, J.I.; Brown, H.; Chowdhury, M.; Cueto, M.; Dare, L.; Dussault, G.; Elzinga, G.; et al. Human resources for health: Overcoming the crisis. Lancet 2004, 364, 1984–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mettler, L.; Clevin, L.; Ternamian, A.; Puntambekar, S.; Schollmeyer, T.; Alkatout, I. The past, present and future of minimally invasive endoscopy in gynecology: A review and speculative outlook. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 2013, 22, 210–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisma, R.; Mahendran, S.; Majumdar, S.; Smith, D.; Soames, R.W. A comparison of Thiel and formalin embalmed cadavers for thyroid surgery training. Surgeon 2011, 9, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pattanshetti, V.M.; Pattanshetti, S.V. Laparoscopic surgery on cadavers: A novel teaching tool for surgical residents. ANZ J. Surg. 2010, 80, 676–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Katz, R.; Hoznek, A.; Antiphon, P.; van Velthoven, R.; Delmas, V.; Abbou, C.-C. Cadaveric versus Porcine Models in Urological Laparoscopic Training. Urol. Int. 2003, 71, 310–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hammer, N.; Loffler, S.; Bechmann, I.; Steinke, H.; Hadrich, C.; Feja, C. Comparison of modified Thiel embalming and ethanol-glycerin fixation in an anatomy environment: Potentials and limitations of two complementary techniques. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2015, 8, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammer, N.; Loffler, S.; Feja, C.; Sandrock, M.; Schmidt, W.; Bechmann, I.; Steinke, H. Ethanol-glycerin fixation with thymol conservation: A potential alternative to formaldehyde and phenol embalming. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2012, 5, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wedel, T.; Ackermann, J.; Hagedorn, H.; Mettler, L.; Maass, N.; Alkatout, I. Educational training in laparoscopic gynecological surgery based on ethanol-glycerol-lysoformin-preserved body donors. Ann. Anat. 2019, 221, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ackermann, J.; Wedel, T.; Hagedorn, H.; Maass, N.; Mettler, L.; Heinze, T.; Alkatout, I. Establishment and evaluation of a training course in advanced laparoscopic surgery based on human body donors embalmed by ethanol-glycerol-lysoformin fixation. Surg. Endosc. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkatout, I.; Holthaus, B. Congress report of the 23rd AGE annual meeting from 26th—28th April 2018 in Hamburg. J. Turk. Ger. Gynecol. Assoc. 2018, 19, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philip-Watson, J.; Khan, S.A.; Hadjipavlou, M.; Rane, A.; Knoll, T. Live surgery at conferences—Clinical benefits and ethical dilemmas. Arab. J. Urol. 2014, 12, 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ogaya-Pinies, G.; Abdul-Muhsin, H.; Palayapalayam-Ganapathi, H.; Bonet, X.; Rogers, T.; Rocco, B.; Coelho, R.; Hernandez-Cardona, E.; Jenson, C.; Patel, V. Safety of Live Robotic Surgery: Results from a Single Institution. Eur. Urol. Focus 2019, 5, 693–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brunckhorst, O.; Challacombe, B.; Abboudi, H.; Khan, M.S.; Dasgupta, P.; Ahmed, K. Systematic review of live surgical demonstrations and their effectiveness on training. Br. J. Surg. 2014, 101, 1637–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Artibani, W.; Ficarra, V.; Challacombe, B.J.; Abbou, C.C.; Bedke, J.; Boscolo-Berto, R.; Brausi, M.; de la Rosette, J.J.; Deger, S.; Denis, L.; et al. EAU policy on live surgery events. Eur. Urol. 2014, 66, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salami, S.S.; Elsamra, S.E.; Motato, H.; Leavitt, D.A.; Friedlander, J.I.; Paoli, M.A.; Duty, B.; Okeke, Z.; Smith, A.D. Performing in the surgical amphitheater of today: Perception of urologists conducting live case demonstrations. J. Endourol. 2014, 28, 1121–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, A. Urological live surgery—An anathema. BJU Int. 2012, 110, 299–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmit, A.; Lazaraki, G.; Hittelet, A.; Cremer, M.; Le Moine, O.; Deviere, J. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during live endoscopy workshop demonstrations. Endoscopy 2005, 37, 695–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shimura, T.; Yamamoto, M.; Tsuchikane, E.; Teramoto, T.; Kimura, M.; Satou, H.; Matsuo, H.; Kawase, Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Kano, S.; et al. Safety of Live Case Demonstrations in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion. Am. J. Cardiol. 2016, 118, 967–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holthaus, B.; Solbach, C.; Albring, C.; Aydeniz, B.; Brucker, S.; Janni, W.; Naumann, G.; Neis, K.J.; Wagner, U.; Wienke, A.; et al. Live-Operationen zur Fort- und Weiterbildung: Der Kodex der Fachgesellschaften. Frauenarzt 2019, 9, 608–611. [Google Scholar]
- Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Endoskopie (AGE) e.V. 2020. Available online: https://www.ag-endoskopie.de (accessed on 9 September 2020).
- Kadar, N. Surgical anatomy and dissection techniques for laparoscopic surgery. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996, 8, 266–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashton-Miller, J.A.; DeLancey, J.O. Functional anatomy of the female pelvic floor. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2007, 1101, 266–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, R.M., Jr.; Taylor, R.H. The core of a competent surgeon: A working knowledge of surgical anatomy and safe dissection techniques. Obstet Gynecol Clin. North. Am. 2011, 38, 777–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, M.; Mettler, L.; Jain, S.; Meshram, S.; Günther, V.; Alkatout, I. Management of a Thin Endometrium by Hysteroscopic Instillation of Platelet-Rich Plasma Into The Endomyometrial Junction: A Pilot Study. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallmes, D.F.; Cloft, H.J.; Molyneux, A.; Burger, I.; Brinjikji, W.; Murphy, K.P. Live case demonstrations: Patient safety, ethics, consent, and conflicts. Lancet 2011, 377, 1539–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ridtitid, W.; Rerknimitr, R.; Treeprasertsuk, S.; Kongkam, P.; Khor, C.J.; Kullavanijaya, P. Outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during live endoscopy demonstrations. Surg. Endosc. 2012, 26, 1931–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hirt, B.; Shiozawa, T.; Herlan, S.; Wagner, H.J.; Kuppers, E. Surgical prosection in a traditional anatomical curriculum-Tubingens’ Sectio chirurgica. Ann. Anat. 2010, 192, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kumaran, V.; Nundy, S. The ethics of live demonstrations of surgery. Curr. Med. Res. Pract 2015, 5, 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkatout, I. An atraumatic retractor for interdisciplinary use in conventional laparoscopy and robotic surgery. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 2018, 27, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Duty, B.; Okhunov, Z.; Friedlander, J.; Okeke, Z.; Smith, A. Live surgical demonstrations: An old, but increasingly controversial practice. Urology 2012, 79, 1185.e7–1185.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkatout, I. Communicative and ethical aspects of physician-patient relationship in extreme situations. Wien. Med. Wochenschr. (1946) 2015, 165, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
N | Mean (SD)% | Min./ Max. | Median (IQR)% | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. How do you rate the benefit of live surgery on real patients for surgical training and further education? | 206 | 88.6 ± 19.7 | 0/100 | 98.0 (86.5–100) |
2. How do you rate the benefit of live surgery on real patients to avoid complications in your own patients? | 205 | 79.6 ± 25.5 | 0/100 | 95.0 (79.0–100) |
3. How do you rate the benefit of live surgery on real patients for learning innovative surgical techniques? | 206 | 85.6 ± 20.7 | 0/100 | 91.0 (66.5–100) |
4. How do you rate the benefit of live surgery on real patients for improving your own surgical skills? | 206 | 79.1 ± 24.0 | 0/100 | 87.5 (65.0–100) |
5. How do you rate the benefit of live surgery on the body donor for surgical training and further education? | 204 | 84.4 ± 21.2 | 0/100 | 95.0 (75.0–100) |
6. How do you rate the authenticity of the body donor? | 202 | 78.9 ± 22.6 | 0/100 | 85.5 (65.5–100) |
7. How do you rate the educational value of simultaneous surgery on body donors and real patients? | 206 | 82.8 ± 24.2 | 0/100 | 95.5 (74.5–100) |
8. Could the body donor replace the real patient in live surgery events? | 202 | 23.3 ± 25.7 | 0/100 | 14.5 (0–39.0) |
Total Number | 208 (100%) |
---|---|
Age (median) | 45 years (range, 25–78 years) |
Number of previously attended live surgery events (median) | 8 (range: 0–100) |
Gender | |
Female | 105 (50.5%) |
Male | 99 (47.6%) |
AGE membership | |
Yes | 178 (86%) |
No | 25 (14%) |
AGE certification | |
MIC I | 57 (28.2%) |
MIC II | 83 (41.1%) |
MIC III | 16 (7.9%) |
no certification | 47 (22.6%) |
Professional experience | |
Resident | 11 (5.3%) |
Specialist | 24 (11.5%) |
Consultant | 81 (38.9%) |
Senior consultant | 44 (21.2%) |
Clinical director | 40 (19.2%) |
Medical care unit | |
Primary and secondary care | 82 (41.0%) |
Tertiary care | 50 (25.0%) |
Quaternary care | 52 (26.0%) |
Private medical office with a surgical unit | 15 (7.5%) |
What Did You Like? | What Did You Not Like? | What Should Be Done Differently? |
---|---|---|
“Parallel surgical steps on body donor and patient.” “Detailed presentation and explanation of the anatomical structures.” “Simultaneous laparoscopy on both real patients and the body donor during the live surgery session was the highlight of the congress.” | “Too little time allocated to anatomical dissection and laparoscopy on the body donor.” “The start of the anatomical presentation was too early, as many participants were not present yet.” “Suboptimal transmission on video screens.” | “More transmissions from the anatomy operating room.” “More time to combine anatomical demonstration with live surgery.” “The videos, especially from the anatomy lab, should be made available to the participants.” “Better scheduling of the anatomy block, so that more aspects can be shown.” “Switch more frequently between live surgery and the anatomy lab.” |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ackermann, J.; Wedel, T.; Holthaus, B.; Bojahr, B.; Hackethal, A.; Brucker, S.; Biebl, M.; Westermann, M.; Günther, V.; Krüger, M.; et al. Didactic Benefits of Surgery on Body Donors during Live Surgery Events in Minimally Invasive Surgery. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2912. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092912
Ackermann J, Wedel T, Holthaus B, Bojahr B, Hackethal A, Brucker S, Biebl M, Westermann M, Günther V, Krüger M, et al. Didactic Benefits of Surgery on Body Donors during Live Surgery Events in Minimally Invasive Surgery. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(9):2912. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092912
Chicago/Turabian StyleAckermann, Johannes, Thilo Wedel, Bernd Holthaus, Bernd Bojahr, Andreas Hackethal, Sara Brucker, Matthias Biebl, Martina Westermann, Veronika Günther, Magret Krüger, and et al. 2020. "Didactic Benefits of Surgery on Body Donors during Live Surgery Events in Minimally Invasive Surgery" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 9: 2912. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092912