Military medicine · 2020
Hybrid Surgical Simulator: A Temporal Bone Simulator Validation Study of the Stryker Surgical Simulator (S3).
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Meyer Charles, Noda Francine, Folsom Craig R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The Stryker Surgical Simulator is a hybrid, temporal bone simulator that uses both tactile and haptic feedback combined with a computer interface. We sought to validate this simulator as an otolaryngology resident training tool for performing tympanomastoidectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 15 residents and staff performed five basic cortical mastoidectomies. Staff surgeons comprised the "expert" cohort and resident surgeons comprised the "trainee" cohort. Subjective evaluation of the face validity and content validity was assessed via pre- and postquestionnaires. Objective evaluation of content validity was assessed through grading of each temporal bone dissection specimen, comparing time to task completion, and calculating the rate of injury to critical structures. Study approved by the Institutional Review Board (2013.0001).
RESULTS: Post hoc questionnaires showed that both staff and residents subjectively rated the simulator favorably on face validity, content validity, and all global assessment categories, though there were no significant distinctions between groups (P > 0.05). The resident group had a significantly longer drilling time compared with the staff group throughout the series of tympanomastoidectomies (P = 0.008), and both groups showed a decrease in time to task completion with repetitive drilling. However, there were no significant differences in surgical performance as evaluated by a blinded senior neurotologist (P = 0.52). There were also no critical injuries recorded by the simulator in any of the 75 trials, preventing any evaluation on this measure.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite favorable subjective evaluations by both staff and residents, objective discrimination between experienced and novice participants was not achieved. This was likely in part due to inherent design flaws of the simulator. This emphasizes the potential shortcomings of surgical simulation models for highly technical procedures and points to the importance of intensive study and validation prior to incorporation of commercial training models into surgical training programs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 15 residents and staff performed five basic cortical mastoidectomies. Staff surgeons comprised the "expert" cohort and resident surgeons comprised the "trainee" cohort. Subjective evaluation of the face validity and content validity was assessed via pre- and postquestionnaires. Objective evaluation of content validity was assessed through grading of each temporal bone dissection specimen, comparing time to task completion, and calculating the rate of injury to critical structures. Study approved by the Institutional Review Board (2013.0001).
RESULTS: Post hoc questionnaires showed that both staff and residents subjectively rated the simulator favorably on face validity, content validity, and all global assessment categories, though there were no significant distinctions between groups (P > 0.05). The resident group had a significantly longer drilling time compared with the staff group throughout the series of tympanomastoidectomies (P = 0.008), and both groups showed a decrease in time to task completion with repetitive drilling. However, there were no significant differences in surgical performance as evaluated by a blinded senior neurotologist (P = 0.52). There were also no critical injuries recorded by the simulator in any of the 75 trials, preventing any evaluation on this measure.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite favorable subjective evaluations by both staff and residents, objective discrimination between experienced and novice participants was not achieved. This was likely in part due to inherent design flaws of the simulator. This emphasizes the potential shortcomings of surgical simulation models for highly technical procedures and points to the importance of intensive study and validation prior to incorporation of commercial training models into surgical training programs.