Randomized comparison of standard laparoscopic trainer to novel, at-home, low-cost, camera-less laparoscopic trainer.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the utility of a portable, at-home, low-cost, camera-less laparoscopic trainer to provide laparoscopy training inexpensively and outside the constraints of the hospital environment. METHODS Twenty-two urology residents (postgraduate year 1 to 7) were tested prospectively on four basic laparoscopic tasks on a standard video laparoscopic trainer (pretest). Objective and subjective data were collected for each participant. The subjects were then randomized to 5 hours of training on either a portable, camera-less trainer (group 1) or a standard video laparoscopic trainer (group 2). Each resident was then retested on the initial same four laparoscopic tasks (post-test). Efficiency ratios were calculated for each task, incorporating both time and accuracy. Improvements between the pretest and post-test evaluations were compared between the two groups using the two-group t test. RESULTS All subjects significantly improved their performance with training. The average improvement in the time required to complete the laparoscopic tasks for all participants was 36%. Efficiency increased by 52%. However, no difference was found between the two groups. In the poststudy self-evaluations, 91% of participants in group 1 either agreed or strongly agreed that the at-home trainer was a helpful teaching modality. CONCLUSIONS The improvements in laparoscopic skills on our inexpensive, portable, at-home, camera-less trainer were not significantly different from those gained using a traditional video laparoscopic trainer. Participants trained on our portable trainer were able to improve objectively and subjectively by both external and internal evaluations. Thus, our system will allow trainees to develop their laparoscopic skills in an inexpensive manner in the comfort of their own home.