Page 215 - Read Online
P. 215

Riaz et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2018;2:28  I  http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2018.41                                              Page 5 of 8



                                                        20 candidates
                                                     Kinaesthetic training
                                                      5 motions dominant
                                                    5 motions non-dominant




                                                     Baseline assessment




                                 10 candidates                                10 candidates
                              Mental training group                           Control group




                                  Displayed                             Distraction laparoscopic exer-
                                  Instructions                                    cise




                    Dominant hand        Non-dominant hand       Dominant hand        Non-dominant hand
                      Final task            Final task             Final task             Final task
                   Final assessment       Final assessment      Final assessment       Final assessment


                                                      Figure 5. Trial profile

               Baseline assessment
               For baseline assessment, subjects were advised to pull the laparoscopic grasper in order to generate the
               target force of 1 kg. The outcome was recorded by an observer. Following the baseline assessment, the
               participants were informed of their allocated group.


               Final assessment
               An assessment similar to the baseline was conducted following the mental training or distraction exercise
               in both groups. The final assessment was conducted once. Candidates then repeated the final assessment
               with their non-dominant hands [Figure 5].


               Statistical analysis
               The statistical package for the Social Sciences Software (version 17.0.0, SPSS Chicago, IL, USA) and Excel
               (Microsoft Excel®, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA) was used for data collection and
               interpretation. Based on previous similar studies  and literature review, power calculation suggested that
                                                         [2,3]
               20 candidates should enable the detection of 20% difference between the two groups with 80% power at P
               < 0.05. Data for baseline and final assessment showed parametric distribution. Student t-test determined
               mean ± standard error of mean (s.e.m) with 95% confidence interval to highlight statistical difference
               between groups.


               RESULTS
               Results were analysed after plotting baseline and final assessment scores, resulting from target force applied
               [Table 1]. Improvement in precision was measured by the values of standard error of mean. The lower the
               standard error of mean, the higher the precision of the group.
   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220