Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T14:51:04.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Otolaryngology residents’ perceptions of endoscopic ear surgery during surgical training

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

C L Ng*
Affiliation:
Department of Ear, Nose and Throat – Head and Neck Surgery, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore
W Ong
Affiliation:
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore
R Y S Ngo
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, National University Health System, Singapore
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Chew Lip Ng, Department of Ear, Nose and Throat – Head and Neck Surgery, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, 1 Jurong East Street 21, Singapore609606 E-mail: ngchewlip@gmail.com

Abstract

Background

The introduction of endoscopic ear surgery has implications for the training of otolaryngology residents.

Objectives

To report on the status of endoscopic ear surgery and assess the effects of this new technology on otolaryngology training in Singapore, from the residents’ perspective.

Methods

An anonymous survey was conducted amongst all Singaporean otolaryngology residents. Residents’ exposure to, and perceptions of, endoscopic ear surgery were assessed.

Results

Residents from institutions that practise endoscopic ear surgery were more positive regarding its efficacy in various otological surgical procedures. Of residents in programmes with exposure to endoscopic ear surgery, 82.4 per cent felt that its introduction had adversely affected their training, with 88.3 per cent of residents agreeing that faculty members’ learning of endoscopic ear surgery had decreased their hands-on surgical load. Both groups expressed desire for more experience with endoscopy.

Conclusion

The majority of residents view endoscopic ear surgery as an expanding field with a potentially negative impact on their training. Mitigating measures should be implemented to minimise its negative impact on residents’ training.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr C L Ng takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Sarkar, S, Banerjee, S, Chakravarty, S, Singh, R, Sikder, B, Bera, SP. Endoscopic stapes surgery: our experience in thirty two patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2013;38:157–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balasubramanian, T, Venkatesan, U. Endoscopic otology A supplement. Otolaryngology 2012;2:125Google Scholar
Presutti, L, Gioacchini, FM, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Villari, D, Marchioni, D. Results of endoscopic middle ear surgery for cholesteatoma treatment: a systematic review. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2014;34:153–7Google ScholarPubMed
Yadav, SP, Aggarwal, N, Julaha, M, Goel, A. Endoscope-assisted myringoplasty. Singapore Med J 2009;50:510–12Google ScholarPubMed
Nadol, JB Jr.Training the physician-scholar in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;121:214–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ko, CY, Escarce, JJ, Baker, L, Sharp, J, Guarino, C. Predictors of surgery resident satisfaction with teaching by attendings: a national survey. Ann Surg 2005;241:373–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allori, AC, Marcus, JR, Daluvoy, S, Bond, J. Video-assisted palatopharyngeal surgery: a model for improved education and training. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2014;51:605–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMasters, KM, Wong, SL, Chao, C, Woo, C, Tuttle, TM, Noyes, RD et al. Defining the optimal surgeon experience for breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy: a model for implementation of new surgical techniques. Ann Surg 2001;234:292–9; discussion 299–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenot, K, Goyert, GL. Impact of robotic surgery on obstetric-gynecologic resident training. J Reprod Med 2009;54:675–7Google ScholarPubMed
Robinson, M, Macneily, A, Goldenberg, L, Black, P. Status of robotic-assisted surgery among Canadian urology residents. Can Urol Assoc J 2012;6:160–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seymour, NE, Gallagher, AG, Roman, SA, O'Brien, MK, Bansal, VK, Andersen, DK et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 2002;236:458–63; discussion 63–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritter, EM, McClusky, DA 3rd, Lederman, AB, Gallagher, AG, Smith, CD. Objective psychomotor skills assessment of experienced and novice flexible endoscopists with a virtual reality simulator. J Gastrointest Surg 2003;7:871–7; discussion 877–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, L, Satava, RM, Pellegrini, CA, Sinanan, MN. Robotic surgery: identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1744–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piromchai, P, Avery, A, Laopaiboon, M, Kennedy, G, O'Leary, S. Virtual reality training for improving the skills needed for performing surgery of the ear, nose or throat. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(9):CD010198Google Scholar
Arora, A, Lau, LY, Awad, Z, Darzi, A, Singh, A, Tolley, N. Virtual reality simulation training in otolaryngology. Int J Surg 2014;12:8794CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pugh, CM, DaRosa, DA, Glenn, D, Bell, RH Jr.A comparison of faculty and resident perception of resident learning needs in the operating room. J Surg Educ 2007;64:250–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yap, SA, DeLair, SM, Tanaka, ST, Kurzrock, EA. Current perceptions of resident training in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Urology 2009;73:1067–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed