title: Maintenance training for laparoscopic suturing: the quest for the perfect timing and training model: a randomized trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Although excellent training programs exist for acquiring the challenging skill required in laparoscopic suturing, without subsequent reinforcement, performance is prone to decay. Therefore, maintenance training is proposed to ensure better skill retention. This study aimed to elucidate the ideal timing and frequency of maintenance training as well as the best model to be used for this training.
  
  
  METHODS
  After completing a proficiency-based laparoscopic suturing training, 39 medical students attended different maintenance programs represented by four groups: a control group without additional training (group 1), a massed training group with one supervised training session (150 min) after 2.5 months (group 2), and two distributed training groups with five monthly unsupervised training sessions of 30 min on a box trainer (group 3) or the LapMentor(®) (group 4). Retention testing, after 5 months, included suturing on a box trainer and on a cadaver porcine Nissen model. Performance scores (time and errors) were expressed in seconds. Afterward, time needed to regain proficiency was measured.
  
  
  RESULTS
  On the box trainer, the median performance scores were 233 s (interquartile range [IQR] 27 s) for group 1, 180 s (IQR 55 s) for group 2, 169 s (IQR 26 s) for group 3, and 226 s (IQR 66 s) for group 4 (p = 0.03). No difference was seen between groups 2 and 3, both of which significantly outperformed groups 1 and 4. On the porcine Nissen model, no differences were detected between the groups (p = 0.53). Group 3 reached proficiency more quickly than the other groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Maintenance training is a valuable and necessary addendum to proficiency-based training programs for laparoscopic suturing. A maintenance-training interval of 1 month with unsupervised training sessions on simple box trainers seems ideal. The LapMentor(®) did not show any benefit. Performance differences between groups did not translate to a clinically relevant model, indicating that transfer of training is not perfect.
authors: Center for Surgical Technologies, Leuven, Belgium, siska.vanbruwaene@gmail.com.
authors: Siska
authors: S
authors: Van Bruwaene
authors: Marlies P
authors: MP
authors: Schijven
authors: Marc
authors: M
authors: Miserez
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D004504:Education, Medical, Undergraduate / Q000379:methods*; D004521:Educational Measurement; D005260:Female; D018662:Fundoplication / Q000193:education / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000193:education*; D059032:Learning Curve; D008297:Male; D008961:Models, Structural; D013337:Students, Medical; D013536:Suture Techniques / Q000193:education*; D013552:Swine; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D014584:User-Computer Interface; D055815:Young Adult
references: J Am Coll Surg. 2006 Apr;202(4):599-603
references: 16571429
references: Am J Surg. 2007 Jun;193(6):774-83
references: 17512295
references: Surg Endosc. 2008 Apr;22(4):985-90
references: 17710487
references: Surg Innov. 2008 Mar;15(1):69-73
references: 18387999
references: Surg Endosc. 2009 Dec;23(12):2755-61
references: 19444512
references: Surg Endosc. 2008 Jul;22(7):1636-42
references: 18027030
references: Ann Surg. 2006 Sep;244(3):400-9
references: 16926566
references: Surgery. 2007 Nov;142(5):712-21
references: 17981192
references: JSLS. 2008 Jul-Sep;12(3):219-26
references: 18765042
references: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009 Aug;19(4):e125-9
references: 19692862
references: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011 Dec;21(6):458-61
references: 22146172
references: Am J Surg. 2008 Jul;196(1):74-80
references: 18417086
references: Ann Surg. 2012 Jan;255(1):30-7
references: 21637099
references: Surgery. 2006 Aug;140(2):252-62
references: 16904977
references: Surgery. 2012 Jul;152(1):12-20
references: 22341719
references: Am J Surg. 2012 Jan;203(1):1-7
references: 22172481
references: J Surg Educ. 2011 Jul-Aug;68(4):282-9
references: 21708364
references: Surgery. 2010 Aug;148(2):194-201
references: 20580046
references: J Am Coll Surg. 2005 Jul;201(1):23-9
references: 15978440
references: Surg Endosc. 2010 Nov;24(11):2830-4
references: 20428895
references: Surgery. 2009 Aug;146(2):387-93
references: 19628100
references: Surg Endosc. 2008 May;22(5):1214-22
references: 17943369
references: J Urol. 2009 Sep;182(3):1018-25
references: 19616797
references: Cir Esp. 2009 Sep;86(3):167-70
references: 19616204
references: J Surg Res. 2010 Sep;163(1):24-8
references: 20605587