Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Primer: cognitive motor learning for teaching surgical skill—how are surgical skills taught and assessed?

Nature Clinical Practice Urology volume 5, pages 47–54 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

As the practice of surgery evolves, the modalities by which future surgeons are trained must also develop. Traditionally, surgical trainees have learned through a mentorship model, with the majority of cognitive motor learning for surgical skill being initiated and practiced within the operating room. This, however, is no longer the ideal environment in which to acquire surgical skills and, subsequently, many surgical training programs are incorporating the use of other surgical models within their curricula. Training on simulators, ranging from low-fidelity bench models to complex, high-fidelity virtual reality models, seems to be transferable and might prove to be a crucial supplement to the traditional curriculum. Models that are reliable and valid, coupled with objective instruments that measure technical skill, might prove to be useful for evaluation. For a simulator to provide a good assessment of competency, it should either correlate to or predict the person's technical performance in the operating room. More research is, therefore, needed regarding the validity and transferability of various training models, particularly if they are to become a form of assessment for certification or licensure.

Key Points

  • The traditional model of apprenticeship alone for training in surgical skill might no longer be appropriate

  • Many surgical training programs are incorporating the use of surgical models within their curricula

  • Many modalities of simulators for teaching new surgical skills are available, including bench models, animal models, cadavers and computer software-based virtual reality simulators

  • It seems that skills learned on a simulator are transferable to the clinical setting

  • Simulators might also prove useful for evaluation of the surgical proficiency of a trainee

  • Future use of simulators could be incorporated into a high-stakes assessment, but this is controversial

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wanzel KR et al. (2002) Teaching the surgical craft: from selection to certification. Curr Probl Surg 39: 583–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wanzel KR et al. (2002) Teaching technical skills: training on a simple, inexpensive, and portable model. Plast Reconstr Surg 109: 258–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kopta JA (1971) The development of motor skills in orthopedic education. Clin Orthop 75: 80–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmidt RA (1975) A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol Rev 82: 225–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Collins A et al. (1989) Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, 453–494 (Eds Glaser R and Resnick LB) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ericsson KA (1996) The acquisition of expert performance: an introduction to some of the issues. In The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games, 1–50 (Ed Ericsson KA) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hamdorf JM and Hall JC (2000) Acquiring surgical skills. Br J Surg 87: 28–37

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Matsumoto ED (2007) Low-fidelity ureterscopy models. J Endourol 21: 248–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bridges M and Diamond DL (1999) The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. Am J Surg 177: 28–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Anastakis DJ et al. (1999) Assessment of technical skills transfer from the bench training model to the human model. Am J Surg 177: 167–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Leape LL (1994) Error in medicine. JAMA 272: 1851–1857

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nuland SB (2004) Mistakes in the operating room: error and responsibility. N Engl J Med 351: 1281–1283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamstra SJ et al. (2006) Teaching technical skills to surgical residents. Clin Orthop Relat Res 449: 108–115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ericsson KA (2004) Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 79 (Suppl): S70–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Krummel TM (1998) Surgical simulation and virtual reality: the coming revolution. Ann Surg 228: 635–637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Undre S and Darzi A (2007) Laparoscopy simulators. J Endourol 21: 274–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McDougall EM (2007) Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 21: 244–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grober ED et al. (2004) The educational impact of bench model fidelity on the acquisition of technical skill. Ann Surg 240: 374–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Matsumoto ED et al. (2002) The effect of bench model fidelity on endourologic skills: a randomized controlled study. J Urol 167: 1243–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fried GM (2005) The Steinberg–Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery at McGill University. Surg Innov 12: 345–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fried GM et al. (1999) Comparison of laparoscopic performance in vivo with performance measured in laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 13: 1077–1082

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Naik VN et al. (2001) Fiberoptic orotracheal intubation on anesthetized patients: do manipulation skills learned on a simple model transfer into the operating room? Anesthesiology 95: 343–348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Scott DJ et al. (2000) Laparoscopic training on bench models: better and more cost effective than operating room experience? J Am Coll Surg 191: 272–283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Seymour NE et al. (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236: 458–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Martin JA et al. (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84: 273–278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Reznick R et al. (1997) Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination. Am J Surg 173: 226–230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Reznick RK (1993) Teaching and testing technical skills. Am J Surg 165: 358–361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Regehr G et al. (1998) Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 73: 226–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Guillonneau B (2005) Should we consider testing for skill in surgery? Eur Urol 47: 480–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haluck RS and Krummer TM (2000) Computers and virtual reality for surgical education in the 21st century. Arch Surg 135: 786–792

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Watterson JD and Denstedt JD (2007) Ureteroscopy and cystoscopy simulation in urology. J Endourol 21: 263–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brehmer M and Swartz R (2002) Validation of a bench model for endoscopic surgery in the upper urinary tract. Eur Urol 42: 175–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Knoll T et al. (2005) Validation of computer-based training in ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int 95: 1276–1279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Knudsen BE et al. (2006) A randomized, controlled, prospective study validating the acquisition of percutaneous renal collecting system access skills using a computer based hybrid virtual reality surgical simulator: phase I. J Urol 176: 2173–2178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Matsumoto ED et al. (2001) A novel approach to endourological training: training as the surgical skills center. J Urol 166: 1261–1266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Park S et al. (2006) Face, content and construct validity testing on a percutaneous renal access simulator. J Endourol 20 (Suppl 1): A4

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rassweiler J et al. (2007) Mechanical simulators for training for laparoscopic surgery in urology. J Endourol 21: 252–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilson MS et al. (1997) A virtual reality trainer for laparoscopic surgery assesses performance. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 79: 403–404

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Taffinder N et al. (1998) Validation of virtual reality to teach and assess psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery: results from randomized controlled studies using the MIST VR laparoscopic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform 50: 124–130

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Larsson A (2001) An open and flexible framework for computer aided surgical training. Stud Health Technol Inform 81: 263–265

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sherman V et al. (2005) Assessing the learning curve for the acquisition of laparoscopic skills on a virtual reality simulator. Surg Endosc 19: 678–682

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Schijven MP and Jakismowicz J (2003) Introducing the Xitact LS500 laparoscopy simulator: toward a revolution in surgical education. Surg Technol Int 11: 32–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schijven M and Jakinowicz J (2003) Construct validity. Experts and novices performing on the Xitact LS500 laparoscopy simulator. Surg Endosc 17: 803–810

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Rolfsson G et al. (2002) Training and assessment of laparoscopic skills using a haptic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform 85: 409–411

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schijven M and Jakismowicz J (2003) Virtual reality surgical laparoscopic simulators. Surg Endsoc 17: 1943–1950

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Corica FA et al. (2005) Construct validity of the LapMentor laparoscopic simulator. J Endourol 19 (Suppl 1): A183

    Google Scholar 

  47. Verdaasdonk EGG et al. (2007) Construct validity and assessment of the learning curve for the SIMENDO endoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 21: 1406–1412

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. JA Wong is a Laparoscopy and Endourology Clinical Fellow in the Division of Urology and Centre for Minimal Access Surgery and ED Matsumoto is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, at McMaster University in Hamilton, ON, Canada.,

    Jaime A Wong & Edward D Matsumoto

Authors
  1. Jaime A Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward D Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward D Matsumoto.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wong, J., Matsumoto, E. Primer: cognitive motor learning for teaching surgical skill—how are surgical skills taught and assessed?. Nat Rev Urol 5, 47–54 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0991

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0991

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing