Laparoscopic suturing training using positive or negative feedback: A randomized controlled trial.
Saved in:
| Title: | Laparoscopic suturing training using positive or negative feedback: A randomized controlled trial. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Sun L; Simulation Center, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China.; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China., Su J; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China., Zhang Y; Simulation Center, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China., Guo F; Simulation Center, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China.; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China., Mu Y; Simulation Center, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China.; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China., Konge L; Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), Copenhagen, Denmark., Lu Y; Simulation Center, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China., Wang Z; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China. wangzh1972@126.com., Bian Z; Simulation Center, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China. oldbian2@126.com.; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No.160 Pujian Rd, Shanghai, 200127, China. oldbian2@126.com. |
| Source: | Surgical endoscopy [Surg Endosc] 2025 Nov 17. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Nov 17. |
| Publication Model: | Ahead of Print |
| Publication Type: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Journal Info: | Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 8806653 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1432-2218 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09302794 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Surg Endosc Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: 1992- : New York : Springer Original Publication: [Berlin] : Springer International, c1987- |
| Abstract: | Competing Interests: Declarations. Disclosures: There is no conflicts of interest to declose for all the authors. Longci Sun has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Juncheng Su has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Yan Zhang has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Feng Guo has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Yifei Mu has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Lars Konge has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Zheng Wang has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Zhengqian Bian has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Background: Simulation-based training (SBT) relies heavily on feedback to optimize skill acquisition. While prior studies suggest both positive and negative feedback enhance immediate performance, their effects on skill acquisition and motivational implications remain underexplored. Methods: This randomized controlled trial recruited 42 laparoscopic-naïve medical students, stratified into three groups: positive feedback (emotional encouragement), negative feedback (critical remarks), and no feedback. Participants were assessed at baseline using the intracorporeal suturing assessment tool (ISAT), followed by 2 h of standardized training. One week after training, skill retention was reassessed using ISAT, and motivation was measured using the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) with seven items (I). Results: Both feedback groups demonstrated significant skill improvement (positive: 76.8% ΔISAT, p < 0.001; negative: 62.0% ΔISAT, p < 0.001) versus controls (11.2% ΔISAT, p = 0.12). Positive feedback recipients reported higher perceived competence (IMI I4: 5.3 vs 3.6, p = 0.029; IMI I6: 6.2 vs 4.5, p = 0.039) and lower pressure/tension (I2: 2.6 vs 4.3, p = 0.005) compared to negative counterparts. In addition, the perceived competence of trainees was positively correlated with interest/emotion and negatively correlated with pressure/tension in the positive feedback group, while the perceived competence of trainees was positively correlated with pressure/tension in negative feedback group. Conclusion: Both positive and negative feedback are superior to the absence of feedback in enhancing laparoscopic surgical skills. Positive feedback outperforms negative feedback in terms of skill improvement. Participants receiving negative feedback caused more tissue injuries during suturing. Moreover, positive feedback can enhance the intrinsic motivation and self-confidence of trainees in practicing their skills compared to negative feedback. (© 2025. The Author(s).) |
| References: | Reznick RK, MacRae H (2006) Teaching surgical skills–changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 21(25):2664–2669. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054785. (PMID: 10.1056/NEJMra054785) Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hamstra SJ (2011) Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 7(9):978–988. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1234. (PMID: 10.1001/jama.2011.1234) Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Romer C (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev 100(3):363–406. (PMID: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363) Ericsson KA (2008) Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a general overview. Acad Emerg Med 15(11):988–994. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00227.x18778378) Vilmann AS, Norsk D, Svendsen MBS et al (2018) Computerized feedback during colonoscopy training leads to improved performance: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 88(5):869–876. (PMID: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.07.00830031803) Strandbygaard J, Bjerrum F, Maagaard M et al (2013) Instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 257(5):839–844. (PMID: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827eee6e23295321) Griswold-Theodorson S, Ponnuru S, Dong C, Szyld D, Reed T, McGaghie WC (2015) Beyond the simulation laboratory: a realist synthesis review of clinical outcomes of simulation-based mastery learning. Acad Med 90(11):1553–1560. (PMID: 10.1097/ACM.000000000000093826375271) Dolan RJ (2002) Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science 298(5596):1191–1194. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1076358. (PMID: 10.1126/science.107635812424363) Santos V, Paes F, Pereira V et al (2013) The role of positive emotion and contributions of positive psychology in depression treatment: systematic review. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 9:221–237. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901309010221. (PMID: 10.2174/1745017901309010221243580523866689) Tjønnås MS, Guzmán-García C, Sánchez-González P, Gómez EJ, Oropesa I, Våpenstad C (2022) Stress in surgical educational environments: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ 22(1):791. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03841-6. (PMID: 10.1186/s12909-022-03841-6363803349667591) Kannappan A, Yip DT, Lodhia NA, Morton J, Lau JN (2012) The effect of positive and negative verbal feedback on surgical skills performance and motivation. J Surg Educ 69(6):798–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.05.012. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.05.01223111049) Wollstein Y, Jabbour N (2022) Spaced effect learning and blunting the forgetfulness curve. Ear Nose Throat J 101(9_suppl):42S-46S. https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613231163726. (PMID: 10.1177/0145561323116372636880338) Montanari E, Schwameis R, Louridas M et al (2016) Training on an inexpensive tablet-based device is equally effective as on a standard laparoscopic box trainer: a randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(39):e4826. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004826. (PMID: 10.1097/MD.000000000000482627684813) Ko JKY, Cheung VYT, Pun TC, Tung WK (2018) A randomized controlled trial comparing trainee-directed virtual reality simulation training and box trainer on the acquisition of laparoscopic suturing skills. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 40(3):310–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2017.07.010. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.07.01028964657) Shrestha P (2017) Ebbinghaus forgetting curve. Psychestudy. https://www.psychestudy.com/cognitive/memory/ebbinghaus-forgetting-curve . Anton NE, Sawyer JM, Korndorffer JR Jr, DuCoin CG, McRary G, Timsina LR, Stefanidis D (2018) Developing a robust suturing assessment: validity evidence for the intracorporeal suturing assessment tool. Surgery 163(3):560–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2017.10.029. (PMID: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.10.02929274941) Cikajlo I, Peterlin Potisk K (2019) Advantages of using 3D virtual reality based training in persons with Parkinson’s disease: a parallel study. J Neuroeng Rehabil 16(1):119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0601-1. (PMID: 10.1186/s12984-019-0601-1316236226798369) McAuley E, Duncan T, Tammen VV (1989) Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport 60(1):48–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413. (PMID: 10.1080/02701367.1989.106074132489825) Wagner M, Bibl K, Hrdliczka E et al (2019) Effects of feedback on chest compression quality: a randomized simulation study. Pediatrics 143(2):e20182441. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2441. (PMID: 10.1542/peds.2018-244130700565) Hatala R, Cook DA, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R (2014) Feedback for simulation-based procedural skills training: a meta-analysis and critical narrative synthesis. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 19(2):251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-013-9462-8. (PMID: 10.1007/s10459-013-9462-823712700) Liu A, Duffy M, Tse S et al (2023) Concurrent versus terminal feedback: the effect of feedback delivery on lumbar puncture skills in simulation training. Med Teach 45(8):906–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2189540. (PMID: 10.1080/0142159X.2023.218954036931315) Plakht Y, Shiyovich A, Nusbaum L, Raizer H (2013) The association of positive and negative feedback with clinical performance, self-evaluation and practice contribution of nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 33(10):1264–1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.07.017. (PMID: 10.1016/j.nedt.2012.07.01722889579) García JA, Carcedo RJ, Castaño JL (2019) The influence of feedback on competence, motivation, vitality, and performance in a throwing task. Res Q Exerc Sport 90(2):172–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2019.1571677. (PMID: 10.1080/02701367.2019.157167730794114) Ming X, Lou Y, Zou L, Lei Y, Li H, Li Y (2021) The cumulative effect of positive and negative feedback on emotional experience. Psychophysiology 58(12):e13935. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13935. (PMID: 10.1111/psyp.1393534459511) Martz N, Lachkar AA, Breaud J et al (2025) The influence of positive and negative intraoperative feedback in laparoscopic simulation in pediatric urology training. J Pediatr Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2025.01.006. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2025.01.00639855992) Tieken KR, Kelly G, Maxwell J, Visenio MR, Reynolds J, Fingeret AL (2024) Feedback versus compliments versus both in suturing and knot tying simulation: a randomized controlled trial. J Surg Res 294:99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.09.037. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.09.03737866070) Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, Norman MK (eds) (2010) How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching (1st ed). Jossey-Bass. Halperin I, Ramsay E, Philpott B, Obolski U, Behm DG (2020) The effects of positive and negative verbal feedback on repeated force production. Physiol Behav 225:113086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113086. (PMID: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.11308632692988) |
| Grant Information: | 220902943121522 Ministry of Education University-Industry Collaborative Education Program; JFXM202509 Teacher Development Training Program of Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: Laparoscopic training; Negative feedback; Positive feedback; Simulation |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20251117 Latest Revision: 20251117 |
| Update Code: | 20251118 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00464-025-12285-0 |
| PMID: | 41249535 |
| Database: | MEDLINE |
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | Competing Interests: Declarations. Disclosures: There is no conflicts of interest to declose for all the authors. Longci Sun has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Juncheng Su has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Yan Zhang has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Feng Guo has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Yifei Mu has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Lars Konge has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Zheng Wang has no conflicts of interest to disclose; Zhengqian Bian has no conflicts of interest to disclose.<br />Background: Simulation-based training (SBT) relies heavily on feedback to optimize skill acquisition. While prior studies suggest both positive and negative feedback enhance immediate performance, their effects on skill acquisition and motivational implications remain underexplored.<br />Methods: This randomized controlled trial recruited 42 laparoscopic-naïve medical students, stratified into three groups: positive feedback (emotional encouragement), negative feedback (critical remarks), and no feedback. Participants were assessed at baseline using the intracorporeal suturing assessment tool (ISAT), followed by 2 h of standardized training. One week after training, skill retention was reassessed using ISAT, and motivation was measured using the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) with seven items (I).<br />Results: Both feedback groups demonstrated significant skill improvement (positive: 76.8% ΔISAT, p < 0.001; negative: 62.0% ΔISAT, p < 0.001) versus controls (11.2% ΔISAT, p = 0.12). Positive feedback recipients reported higher perceived competence (IMI I4: 5.3 vs 3.6, p = 0.029; IMI I6: 6.2 vs 4.5, p = 0.039) and lower pressure/tension (I2: 2.6 vs 4.3, p = 0.005) compared to negative counterparts. In addition, the perceived competence of trainees was positively correlated with interest/emotion and negatively correlated with pressure/tension in the positive feedback group, while the perceived competence of trainees was positively correlated with pressure/tension in negative feedback group.<br />Conclusion: Both positive and negative feedback are superior to the absence of feedback in enhancing laparoscopic surgical skills. Positive feedback outperforms negative feedback in terms of skill improvement. Participants receiving negative feedback caused more tissue injuries during suturing. Moreover, positive feedback can enhance the intrinsic motivation and self-confidence of trainees in practicing their skills compared to negative feedback.<br /> (© 2025. The Author(s).) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1432-2218 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00464-025-12285-0 |