A Comparative Study in Learning Curves of Two Different Intracorporeal Knot Tying Techniques

IF 1.3 Q3 SURGERY
Manuneethimaran Thiyagarajan, Chandru Ravindrakumar
{"title":"A Comparative Study in Learning Curves of Two Different Intracorporeal Knot Tying Techniques","authors":"Manuneethimaran Thiyagarajan, Chandru Ravindrakumar","doi":"10.1155/2016/3059434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives. In our study we are aiming to analyse the learning curves in our surgical trainees by using two standard methods of intracorporeal knot tying. Material and Method. Two randomized groups of trainees are trained with two different intracorporeal knot tying techniques (loop and winding) by single surgeon for eight sessions. In each session participants were allowed to make as many numbers of knots in thirty minutes. The duration for each set of knots and the number of knots for each session were calculated. At the end each session, participants were asked about their frustration level, difficulty in making knot, and dexterity. Results. In winding method the number of knots tied was increasing significantly in each session with less frustration and less difficulty level. Discussion. The suturing and knotting skill improved in every session in both groups. But group B (winding method) trainees made significantly higher number of knots and they took less time for each set of knots than group A (loop method). Although both knotting methods are standard methods, the learning curve is better in loop method. Conclusion. The winding method of knotting is simpler and easier to perform, especially for the surgeons who have limited laparoscopic experience.","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/3059434","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3059434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Objectives. In our study we are aiming to analyse the learning curves in our surgical trainees by using two standard methods of intracorporeal knot tying. Material and Method. Two randomized groups of trainees are trained with two different intracorporeal knot tying techniques (loop and winding) by single surgeon for eight sessions. In each session participants were allowed to make as many numbers of knots in thirty minutes. The duration for each set of knots and the number of knots for each session were calculated. At the end each session, participants were asked about their frustration level, difficulty in making knot, and dexterity. Results. In winding method the number of knots tied was increasing significantly in each session with less frustration and less difficulty level. Discussion. The suturing and knotting skill improved in every session in both groups. But group B (winding method) trainees made significantly higher number of knots and they took less time for each set of knots than group A (loop method). Although both knotting methods are standard methods, the learning curve is better in loop method. Conclusion. The winding method of knotting is simpler and easier to perform, especially for the surgeons who have limited laparoscopic experience.
两种不同体内打结技术学习曲线的比较研究
目标。在我们的研究中,我们旨在通过使用两种标准的体内打结方法来分析我们的外科学员的学习曲线。材料和方法。随机分为两组,由一名外科医生对两种不同的体内打结技术(环结和缠绕)进行8次培训。在每个环节中,参与者被允许在30分钟内做尽可能多的结。计算每组绳结的持续时间和每节绳结的数量。在每次会议结束时,参与者被问及他们的沮丧程度,打结的难度和灵巧度。结果。在缠绕法中,结的数量在每一节中都有显著的增加,挫折较少,难度较低。讨论。两组患者的缝合打结技术均有提高。但B组(绕线法)的受训者结的结数量明显高于A组(打环法),每组结花的时间也比A组(打环法)少。虽然这两种打结方法都是标准的打结方法,但环法的学习曲线更好。结论。缠绕打结的方法更简单,更容易操作,特别是对于经验有限的外科医生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信