International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2016
Development and validation of a septoplasty training model using 3-dimensional printing technology.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
AlReefi Mahmoud A, Nguyen Lily H P, Mongeau Luc G, Haq Bassam Ul, Boyanapalli Siddharth, Hafeez Nauman, Cegarra-Escolano Francois, Tewfik Marc A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Providing alternative training modalities may improve trainees' ability to perform septoplasty. Three-dimensional printing has been shown to be a powerful tool in surgical training. The objectives of this study were to explain the development of our 3-dimensional (3D) printed septoplasty training model, to assess its face and content validity, and to present evidence supporting its ability to distinguish between levels of surgical proficiency.
METHODS: Imaging data of a patient with a nasal septal deviation was selected for printing. Printing materials reproducing the mechanical properties of human tissues were selected based on literature review and prototype testing. Eight expert rhinologists, 6 senior residents, and 6 junior residents performed endoscopic septoplasties on the model and completed a postsimulation survey. Performance metrics in quality (final product analysis), efficiency (time), and safety (eg, perforation length, nares damage) were recorded and analyzed in a study-blind manner.
RESULTS: The model was judged to be anatomically correct and the steps performed realistic, with scores of 4.05 ± 0.82 and 4.2 ± 1, respectively, on a 5-point Likert scale. Ninety-two percent of residents desired the simulator to be integrated into their teaching curriculum. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the expert, intermediate, and novice groups in time taken and nares cuts, whereas other performance metrics showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, there are no other simulator training models for septoplasty. Our model incorporates 2 different materials mixed into the 3 relevant consistencies necessary to simulate septoplasty. Our findings provide evidence supporting the validity of the model.
METHODS: Imaging data of a patient with a nasal septal deviation was selected for printing. Printing materials reproducing the mechanical properties of human tissues were selected based on literature review and prototype testing. Eight expert rhinologists, 6 senior residents, and 6 junior residents performed endoscopic septoplasties on the model and completed a postsimulation survey. Performance metrics in quality (final product analysis), efficiency (time), and safety (eg, perforation length, nares damage) were recorded and analyzed in a study-blind manner.
RESULTS: The model was judged to be anatomically correct and the steps performed realistic, with scores of 4.05 ± 0.82 and 4.2 ± 1, respectively, on a 5-point Likert scale. Ninety-two percent of residents desired the simulator to be integrated into their teaching curriculum. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the expert, intermediate, and novice groups in time taken and nares cuts, whereas other performance metrics showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, there are no other simulator training models for septoplasty. Our model incorporates 2 different materials mixed into the 3 relevant consistencies necessary to simulate septoplasty. Our findings provide evidence supporting the validity of the model.