Objective: To compare the efficacy between motorized articulating instruments (AI) and rigid conventional laparoscopic instruments (CI) in chancing visualizing systems, respectively two-dimension (2D) and three-dimension (3D).
Methods: Sixty physicians were divided into three groups according to their previous experience as medical students (Group 1), residents (Group 2), and expert surgeons (Group 3). Four experimental sets were created, respectively CI-2D visualizing system (CI-2D), CI-3D visualizing system (CI-3D), AI-2D visualizing system (AI-2D), and AI-3D visualizing system (AI-3D) platforms. European training in basic laparoscopic urological skills (E-BLUS) and anastomosis tasks (ın total five tasks) was used. All participants were randomly required to perform tasks in each one of the technical platforms, except anastomosis exercises that were performed as the last exercises. Duration of tasks were measured, and predefined errors were counted. All these were recorded, and completion quality samples were evaluated. Significant p was p < 0.05.
Results: Significant time reduction and improvement in quality of tasks were observed in favor of Group 3, in all sets for all tasks (p < 0.001). Quality of the tasks was significantly improved in AI-3D in Group 1 and Group 2 for all tasks. Task 5 was the most difficult one and needed more experience to be completed with quality. Even, Group 3 was the experienced group; AI with 3D display enabled Group 3 to improve performance with increased quality without statistical significance.
Conclusion: The AI-3D visualizing system can provide more successful completion in E-BLUS tasks than CI-2D, AI-2D, and CI-3D visualizing systems for the beginners in urologic laparoscopy, not for experts. Besides, AI with 3D display enable surgeons to improve their performance with increased quality of tasks, in anastomosis.
Keywords: education; laparoscopy instrumentation; simulation training; training.