Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Cadaveric Porcine Model for Assessment in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery—a Validation Study

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGBP) is the most effective surgical therapy for morbid obesity. It is an advanced laparoscopic surgical procedure and has a protracted learning curve. Therefore, it is important to develop innovative ways of training and assessing surgeons. The aim of this study is to determine if a cadaveric porcine jejuno-jejunostomy model is an accurate way of assessing a surgeon's technical skills by determining if a correlation exists with how he performs in the operating room.

Methods

Eight surgeons of varying experience performed a side-to-side stapled jejuno-jejunostomy on a cadaveric bench model before proceeding to perform the procedure on a real patient scheduled for LRYGBP. Performance was assessed using a motion tracking device, the Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device. Each procedure was recorded in video and scored by two blinded expert surgeons using procedure-specific rating scales.

Results

The cadaveric bench model demonstrated concurrent validity with significant correlations between performance on the cadaveric model and patient for dexterity measures. Left-hand path length, r = 0.857 (median, 27, 41.3; P = 0.007), right-hand path length, r = 0.810 (median, 31.5, 60; P = 0.015) and total number of movements, r = 0.743 (median, 422, 637; P = 0.035). This correlation in performance was also demonstrated in the video rating scales, r = 0.727 (median, 13.2, 14.8; P = 0.041). No correlation was found in operative time (median, 541, 742; P = 0.071).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the concurrent validity of the cadaveric porcine model, showing similar performances in surgeons completing a jejuno-jejunostomy on the cadaveric model and the patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fobi MA, Lee H, Holness R, et al. Gastric bypass operation for obesity. World J Surg. 1998;22(9):925–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Olbers T, Fagevik-Olsen M, Maleckas A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty for obesity. Br J Surg. 2005;92(5):557–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sugerman HJ, Starkey JV, Birkenhauer R. A randomized prospective trial of gastric bypass versus vertical banded gastroplasty for morbid obesity and their effects on sweets versus non-sweets eaters. Ann Surg. 1987;205(6):613–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Westling A, Gustavsson S. Laparoscopic vs open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a prospective, randomized trial. Obes Surg. 2001;11(3):284–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Aggarwal R, Boza C, Hance J, et al. Skills acquisition for laparoscopic gastric bypass in the training laboratory: an innovative approach. Obes Surg. 2007;17(1):19–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nguyen NT, Ho HS, Palmer LS, et al. A comparison study of laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass for morbid obesity. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;191(2):149–55. discussion 155–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen NT, Goldman C, Rosenquist CJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized study of outcomes, quality of life, and costs. Ann Surg. 2001;234(3):279–89. discussion 289–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nguyen NT, Lee SL, Goldman C, et al. Comparison of pulmonary function and postoperative pain after laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192(4):469–76. discussion 476–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nguyen NT, Hinojosa M, Fayad C, et al. Use and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass at academic medical centers. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205(2):248–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tice JA, Karliner L, Walsh J, et al. Gastric banding or bypass? A systematic review comparing the two most popular bariatric procedures. Am J Med. 2008;121(10):885–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Buchwald H, Williams SE. Bariatric surgery worldwide 2003. Obes Surg. 2004;14(9):1157–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Santry HP, Gillen DL, Lauderdale DS. Trends in bariatric surgical procedures. JAMA. 2005;294(15):1909–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pellegrini CA, Warshaw AL, Debas HT. Residency training in surgery in the 21st century: a new paradigm. Surgery. 2004;136(5):953–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schauer P, Ikramuddin S, Hamad G, et al. The learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is 100 cases. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(2):212–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Integrating advanced laparoscopy into surgical residency training. Surg Endosc. 1998;12(4):374–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and the SAGES Bariatric Task Force. Guidelines for institutions granting bariatric privileges utilizing laparoscopic techniques. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(12):2037–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rattner DW, Apelgren KN, Eubanks WS. The need for training opportunities in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(10):1066–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jackson CR, Gibbin KP. ‘Per ardua…’ Training tomorrow's surgeons using inter alia lessons from aviation. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(11):554–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Vara J, Mejía R, Riquelme A et al. Significant transfer of surgical skills obtained with an advanced laparoscopic training program to a laparoscopic jejunojejunostomy in a live porcine model: feasibility of learning advanced laparoscopy in a general surgery residency. Surg Endosc. 2012:1–9.

  20. McDougall EM, Corica FA, Boker JR, et al. Construct validity testing of a laparoscopic surgical simulator. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202(5):779–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Datta V, Mackay S, Mandalia M, et al. The use of electromagnetic motion tracking analysis to objectively measure open surgical skill in the laboratory-based model. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;193(5):479–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Aggarwal R, Darzi A. Technical-skills training in the 21st century. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(25):2695–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cuschieri A, Francis N, Crosby J, et al. What do master surgeons think of surgical competence and revalidation? Am J Surg. 2001;182(2):110–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP, Darzi A. Framework for systematic training and assessment of technical skills. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(4):697–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Rajesh Aggarwal is funded by a Clinician Scientist Award from the National Institute for Health Research, Department of Health, UK.

Conflict of Interest

The authors report no conflict of interest. The authors are responsible for the content and writing of the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Hospital Clinico, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile

    Camilo Boza, Julian Varas, Erwin Buckel, Pablo Achurra & Nicolás Devaud

  2. Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Trystan Lewis & Rajesh Aggarwal

Authors
  1. Camilo Boza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Varas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erwin Buckel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pablo Achurra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicolás Devaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Trystan Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rajesh Aggarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camilo Boza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boza, C., Varas, J., Buckel, E. et al. A Cadaveric Porcine Model for Assessment in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery—a Validation Study. OBES SURG 23, 589–593 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-012-0807-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-012-0807-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation