José Luis Moyano-Cuevas , J. Blas Pagador , Nadeem Saeed , Francisco M. Sánchez-Margallo , Florencio Monje-Gil
{"title":"Validation of a training simulator for temporomandibular joint arthroscopy","authors":"José Luis Moyano-Cuevas , J. Blas Pagador , Nadeem Saeed , Francisco M. Sánchez-Margallo , Florencio Monje-Gil","doi":"10.1016/j.jcms.2024.10.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aims to evaluate a temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthroscopy simulator using construct and face analyses.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Thirty participants attending a TMJ training course were divided into novice and expert surgeons (more than 100 procedures) and performed two arthroscopic tasks (cavity access/cavity exploration) during which the surgical tool movements were tracked. Five objective metrics were used to measure surgeon ability and construct validity was assessed by comparing novel and expert performance. Face validity was assessed by subjective questionnaires rating simulator realism and utility (1–5 scale) and tissue consistency (1–4 scale).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Expert surgeons spent less <em>total time</em> (76.58 ± 47.40 vs. 27.60 ± 5.52; novices vs. experts) with higher <em>average speed</em> (7.40 ± 5.32 vs. 12.65 ± 5.37) and <em>average acceleration</em> (198.33 ± 2.42 vs. 325.93 ± 87.36). <em>Movement smoothness</em> revealed lower values in novice surgeons (3638.33 ± 1083.95 mm/s<sup>3</sup>; 2553.70 ± 768.01 mm/s<sup>3</sup>) than in expert surgeons (4655.63 ± 837.05 mm/s<sup>3</sup>; 4172.08 ± 1098.61 mm/s<sup>3</sup>). All these outcomes reached statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) but in contrast <em>total path</em> of the instruments did not. Face validity scores averaged 4.75/5 for utility and over 4/5 for realism except for watertightness. Tissue consistency was regarded as lower than human tissue but without impact on the training experience. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Both the construct and face validity analyses confirmed the TMJ simulator can be regarded as a valuable, safe, economic adjunctive tool to train TMJ arthroscopy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54851,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":"53 1","pages":"Pages 52-56"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1010518224002889","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
This study aims to evaluate a temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthroscopy simulator using construct and face analyses.
Methods
Thirty participants attending a TMJ training course were divided into novice and expert surgeons (more than 100 procedures) and performed two arthroscopic tasks (cavity access/cavity exploration) during which the surgical tool movements were tracked. Five objective metrics were used to measure surgeon ability and construct validity was assessed by comparing novel and expert performance. Face validity was assessed by subjective questionnaires rating simulator realism and utility (1–5 scale) and tissue consistency (1–4 scale).
Results
Expert surgeons spent less total time (76.58 ± 47.40 vs. 27.60 ± 5.52; novices vs. experts) with higher average speed (7.40 ± 5.32 vs. 12.65 ± 5.37) and average acceleration (198.33 ± 2.42 vs. 325.93 ± 87.36). Movement smoothness revealed lower values in novice surgeons (3638.33 ± 1083.95 mm/s3; 2553.70 ± 768.01 mm/s3) than in expert surgeons (4655.63 ± 837.05 mm/s3; 4172.08 ± 1098.61 mm/s3). All these outcomes reached statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) but in contrast total path of the instruments did not. Face validity scores averaged 4.75/5 for utility and over 4/5 for realism except for watertightness. Tissue consistency was regarded as lower than human tissue but without impact on the training experience. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups.
Conclusions
Both the construct and face validity analyses confirmed the TMJ simulator can be regarded as a valuable, safe, economic adjunctive tool to train TMJ arthroscopy.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery publishes articles covering all aspects of surgery of the head, face and jaw. Specific topics covered recently have included:
• Distraction osteogenesis
• Synthetic bone substitutes
• Fibroblast growth factors
• Fetal wound healing
• Skull base surgery
• Computer-assisted surgery
• Vascularized bone grafts