↓ Skip to main content

Can fatigue affect acquisition of new surgical skills? A prospective trial of pre- and post-call general surgery residents using the da Vinci surgical skills simulator

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Can fatigue affect acquisition of new surgical skills? A prospective trial of pre- and post-call general surgery residents using the da Vinci surgical skills simulator
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5820-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weston Robison, Sonya K. Patel, Akshat Mehta, Tristan Senkowski, John Allen, Eric Shaw, Christopher K. Senkowski

Abstract

To study the effects of fatigue on general surgery residents' performance on the da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS). 15 General Surgery residents from various postgraduate training years (PGY2, PGY3, PGY4, and PGY5) performed 5 simulation tasks on the dVSS as recommended by the Robotic Training Network (RTN). The General Surgery residents had no prior experience with the dVSS. Participants were assigned to either the Pre-call group or Post-call group based on call schedule. As a measure of subjective fatigue, residents were given the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) prior to their dVSS testing. The dVSS MScore™ software recorded various metrics (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills, OSATS) that were used to evaluate the performance of each resident to compare the robotic simulation proficiency between the Pre-call and Post-call groups. Six general surgery residents were stratified into the Pre-call group and nine into the Post-call group. These residents were also stratified into Fatigued (10) or Nonfatigued (5) groups, as determined by their reported ESS scores. A statistically significant difference was found between the Pre-call and Post-call reported sleep hours (p = 0.036). There was no statistically significant difference between the Pre-call and Post-call groups or between the Fatigued and Nonfatigued groups in time to complete exercise, number of attempts, and high MScore™ score. Despite variation in fatigue levels, there was no effect on the acquisition of robotic simulator skills.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 12%
Librarian 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 12 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 35%
Engineering 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,486,023
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,321
of 6,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,731
of 317,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#52
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.