Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Simulator training is an efficient method for the development of basic laparoscopic skills. We aimed to investigate if low-cost simulators are comparable to more expensive box trainers regarding surgeons usability, likability, and performance. METHODS: This multi-center, randomized crossover study included 16 medical students, seven abdominal surgeons, and seven urological surgeons. Participants performed four laparoscopic tasks (peg transfer, circle cutting, balloon resection, suture and knot) on both, a "Low cost trainer" (LCT) or a "high cost trainer" (HCT) in a randomized order. The primary endpoint was the subjective rating of both training simulators in terms of camera view, depth perception, movement of instruments, pricing, and usability for training. Secondary endpoints were force parameters, task completion time, surgical errors, and psychological workload. RESULTS: Participants rated the LCT better concerning view (p < 0.001), depth perception (p = 0.003), pricing (p < 0.001), and usability for digital training (p < 0.001), but worse in terms of instrument movement (p = 0.004). Overall, the LCT was rated better than the HCT (p = 0.015). Regarding force parameters, participants showed a significantly lower force exertion on the HCT during the peg transfer task (p = 0.008). The force exertion in the other tasks were comparable between both trainers. Participants were significantly faster using the HCT during the peg transfer (p = 0.049) and significantly slower in balloon resection (p = 0.049) and suture and knot task (p = 0.026). The assessment of the participants' workload showed no differences. CONCLUSION: The LCT was generally rated better than the HCT. The differences concerning force exertion and task completion time showed better results during peg transfer at the HCT but were generally inconclusive and without systemic advantage for either trainer. However, the LCT could be a promising and cost-effective augmentation for modern laparoscopic training.