"ITrainers" - Novel and inexpensive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic box trainers

Raaj K. Ruparel, Rushin D. Brahmbhatt, Jesse C. Dove, Ryan C. Hutchinson, John A. Stauffer, Steven P. Bowers, Eugene Richie, Amy M. Lannen, David D. Thiel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the use of 2 inexpensive laparoscopic trainers (iTrainers) constructed of easily attainable materials and portable tablets (iPads). Methods Two different laparoscopic trainers were constructed using a cardboard box, thumbtacks, and Velcro tape (box trainer). A separate box was constructed using the same supplies with a 3-ring binder (binder trainer). An iPad was used as the camera and monitor for both trainers. A total of 10 participants, including 4 junior surgical residents, 4 senior surgical residents, and 2 surgical staff, completed 3 Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) tasks using the 2 "iTrainers." Participants then completed the same tasks on a traditional FLS box trainer. All 10 participants were asked to complete a 13-question survey after the exercises. Results All the participants (100%) had access to an "iPad" for the visualization component. The 10 participants completed all 3 tasks on all 3 trainers. Senior residents outperformed junior residents on 6 of the 9 total tasks. Attending surgeons outperformed all residents on all tasks and trainers. Survey results revealed the cardboard box "iTrainer" to be the most practical and easiest to construct. Conclusion "iTrainers" are an inexpensive and easy-to-construct alternative to traditional box trainers that might have construct validity as demonstrated in this trial. The box trainer might be easier to construct and have more similarities to the FLS trainer than the binder iTrainer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)116-120
Number of pages5
JournalUrology
Volume83
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2014

Fingerprint

Laparoscopy
Tablets
Exercise
Surveys and Questionnaires
Surgeons

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Ruparel, R. K., Brahmbhatt, R. D., Dove, J. C., Hutchinson, R. C., Stauffer, J. A., Bowers, S. P., ... Thiel, D. D. (2014). "ITrainers" - Novel and inexpensive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic box trainers. Urology, 83(1), 116-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.030

"ITrainers" - Novel and inexpensive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic box trainers. / Ruparel, Raaj K.; Brahmbhatt, Rushin D.; Dove, Jesse C.; Hutchinson, Ryan C.; Stauffer, John A.; Bowers, Steven P.; Richie, Eugene; Lannen, Amy M.; Thiel, David D.

In: Urology, Vol. 83, No. 1, 01.2014, p. 116-120.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ruparel, RK, Brahmbhatt, RD, Dove, JC, Hutchinson, RC, Stauffer, JA, Bowers, SP, Richie, E, Lannen, AM & Thiel, DD 2014, '"ITrainers" - Novel and inexpensive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic box trainers', Urology, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 116-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.030
Ruparel RK, Brahmbhatt RD, Dove JC, Hutchinson RC, Stauffer JA, Bowers SP et al. "ITrainers" - Novel and inexpensive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic box trainers. Urology. 2014 Jan;83(1):116-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.030
Ruparel, Raaj K. ; Brahmbhatt, Rushin D. ; Dove, Jesse C. ; Hutchinson, Ryan C. ; Stauffer, John A. ; Bowers, Steven P. ; Richie, Eugene ; Lannen, Amy M. ; Thiel, David D. / "ITrainers" - Novel and inexpensive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic box trainers. In: Urology. 2014 ; Vol. 83, No. 1. pp. 116-120.
@article{d4ff8d9716f14a4683f45bc674bdb652,
title = "{"}ITrainers{"} - Novel and inexpensive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic box trainers",
abstract = "Objective To evaluate the use of 2 inexpensive laparoscopic trainers (iTrainers) constructed of easily attainable materials and portable tablets (iPads). Methods Two different laparoscopic trainers were constructed using a cardboard box, thumbtacks, and Velcro tape (box trainer). A separate box was constructed using the same supplies with a 3-ring binder (binder trainer). An iPad was used as the camera and monitor for both trainers. A total of 10 participants, including 4 junior surgical residents, 4 senior surgical residents, and 2 surgical staff, completed 3 Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) tasks using the 2 {"}iTrainers.{"} Participants then completed the same tasks on a traditional FLS box trainer. All 10 participants were asked to complete a 13-question survey after the exercises. Results All the participants (100{\%}) had access to an {"}iPad{"} for the visualization component. The 10 participants completed all 3 tasks on all 3 trainers. Senior residents outperformed junior residents on 6 of the 9 total tasks. Attending surgeons outperformed all residents on all tasks and trainers. Survey results revealed the cardboard box {"}iTrainer{"} to be the most practical and easiest to construct. Conclusion {"}iTrainers{"} are an inexpensive and easy-to-construct alternative to traditional box trainers that might have construct validity as demonstrated in this trial. The box trainer might be easier to construct and have more similarities to the FLS trainer than the binder iTrainer.",
author = "Ruparel, {Raaj K.} and Brahmbhatt, {Rushin D.} and Dove, {Jesse C.} and Hutchinson, {Ryan C.} and Stauffer, {John A.} and Bowers, {Steven P.} and Eugene Richie and Lannen, {Amy M.} and Thiel, {David D.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.030",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "83",
pages = "116--120",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - "ITrainers" - Novel and inexpensive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic box trainers

AU - Ruparel, Raaj K.

AU - Brahmbhatt, Rushin D.

AU - Dove, Jesse C.

AU - Hutchinson, Ryan C.

AU - Stauffer, John A.

AU - Bowers, Steven P.

AU - Richie, Eugene

AU - Lannen, Amy M.

AU - Thiel, David D.

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - Objective To evaluate the use of 2 inexpensive laparoscopic trainers (iTrainers) constructed of easily attainable materials and portable tablets (iPads). Methods Two different laparoscopic trainers were constructed using a cardboard box, thumbtacks, and Velcro tape (box trainer). A separate box was constructed using the same supplies with a 3-ring binder (binder trainer). An iPad was used as the camera and monitor for both trainers. A total of 10 participants, including 4 junior surgical residents, 4 senior surgical residents, and 2 surgical staff, completed 3 Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) tasks using the 2 "iTrainers." Participants then completed the same tasks on a traditional FLS box trainer. All 10 participants were asked to complete a 13-question survey after the exercises. Results All the participants (100%) had access to an "iPad" for the visualization component. The 10 participants completed all 3 tasks on all 3 trainers. Senior residents outperformed junior residents on 6 of the 9 total tasks. Attending surgeons outperformed all residents on all tasks and trainers. Survey results revealed the cardboard box "iTrainer" to be the most practical and easiest to construct. Conclusion "iTrainers" are an inexpensive and easy-to-construct alternative to traditional box trainers that might have construct validity as demonstrated in this trial. The box trainer might be easier to construct and have more similarities to the FLS trainer than the binder iTrainer.

AB - Objective To evaluate the use of 2 inexpensive laparoscopic trainers (iTrainers) constructed of easily attainable materials and portable tablets (iPads). Methods Two different laparoscopic trainers were constructed using a cardboard box, thumbtacks, and Velcro tape (box trainer). A separate box was constructed using the same supplies with a 3-ring binder (binder trainer). An iPad was used as the camera and monitor for both trainers. A total of 10 participants, including 4 junior surgical residents, 4 senior surgical residents, and 2 surgical staff, completed 3 Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) tasks using the 2 "iTrainers." Participants then completed the same tasks on a traditional FLS box trainer. All 10 participants were asked to complete a 13-question survey after the exercises. Results All the participants (100%) had access to an "iPad" for the visualization component. The 10 participants completed all 3 tasks on all 3 trainers. Senior residents outperformed junior residents on 6 of the 9 total tasks. Attending surgeons outperformed all residents on all tasks and trainers. Survey results revealed the cardboard box "iTrainer" to be the most practical and easiest to construct. Conclusion "iTrainers" are an inexpensive and easy-to-construct alternative to traditional box trainers that might have construct validity as demonstrated in this trial. The box trainer might be easier to construct and have more similarities to the FLS trainer than the binder iTrainer.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891276716&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891276716&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.030

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.030

M3 - Article

VL - 83

SP - 116

EP - 120

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 1

ER -