• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Evaluation of Stressor Types on Performance and Workload in FLS Tasks

Evaluation of Stressor Types on Performance and Workload in FLS Tasks

Dharshini Suresh1, Michael Choti2, Alexander Eastman2, Ann Majewicz Fey1. 1University of Texas at Dallas, 2UT Southwestern Medical Center

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of different stressor conditions on performance in laparoscopic surgical training tasks under stress. The stressor conditions evaluated included: (1) environmental stressors (i.e., flickering video and sounds), (2) positive evaluative stressors (i.e., encouraging feedback), (3) negative evaluative stressors (i.e., negative feedback), and (4) clinical stressors (i.e., vitals of patient coding).

METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We developed a stress simulator testbed by integrating an FLS box trainer with a Linux computer, running custom C++ code. The code generated various stressor conditions, while recording sensor data from the trainer and human operator. We tested 3 groups of participants in an IRB approved trial including: novices (non-medical students), intermediates (medical students), and experts (PGY4 residents and fellows). The study consisted of subjects performing the peg transfer and the pattern cut six times (baseline, four randomized stressors, post-test). After each task, the NASA-TLX survey was administered to determine the overall workload of that stressor condition. An analysis of variance was conducted to identify significant trends in terms of stressor type.

RESULTS: When compared to baseline NASA-TLX scores, the intermediate group had the greatest changes in overall workload than novices and experts (p=0.0005). Additionally, the change between baseline and post-test workload was significantly lower than for the environmental, negative evaluative, and clinical stressors (p=0.0006). For pattern cutting, subjects reported a significantly lower perception of failure (p=0.0479) in both the positive evaluative (mean = 8.5556) and post-test conditions (mean = 8.222), yet, though not statistically significant (p = 0.0564), the measured accuracy in the task during the positive evaluative condition was actually worse (33.3%), second only to the pre-test accuracy (31.1%). The best accuracy for pattern cutting across all expertise levels was 62% for the post-test followed by 54.4% in the negative evaluative condition. These results are interesting as they show that despite perceived improvements in performance with a positive feedback condition, performance actually degrades and is better in the negative feedback condition, which is perceived to be more difficult.  These results were not found in the peg transfer task, which is arguably an easier task.

CONCLUSION: From the evidence gathered in the study, it is clear that there is a correlation between distractors and performance. Further analysis is needed to identify the relationship between the type of stressor, and inherent difficulty of the tasks, in terms of which type of stressor best improves learning and outcomes.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 88576

Program Number: P349

Presentation Session: iPoster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

53

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals