Randomized Comparison of Video Demonstration, Simulation-Based Training, and Combination Using Silicone-Latex Simulation for Anal Sphincter Injury Repair in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents.
Riska Wahyuningtyas, Eighty Mardiyan Kurniawati, Gatut Hardianto, Hari Paraton, Tri Hastono Setyo Hadi, Djoko Kuswanto
{"title":"Randomized Comparison of Video Demonstration, Simulation-Based Training, and Combination Using Silicone-Latex Simulation for Anal Sphincter Injury Repair in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents.","authors":"Riska Wahyuningtyas, Eighty Mardiyan Kurniawati, Gatut Hardianto, Hari Paraton, Tri Hastono Setyo Hadi, Djoko Kuswanto","doi":"10.1007/s00192-025-06299-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Our aim was to compare residents' skill for anal sphincter injury repair in a silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model after video demonstration, simulation-based training, and a combination of both.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We randomized obstetrics and gynecology residents to video demonstration by an expert (group 1), simulation-based training (group 2) and a combination training model (group 3) using a validated silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model. We tested the anal sphincter injury repair skills of the residents using the global rating scale (GRS) and the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) scoring system. We assessed the validity of the GRS and OSATS scoring system in Bahasa using this anal sphincter injury model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three residents were randomized into the three groups. Group 3 had the largest different in GRS scores (9.82 95% CI (8.45-11.19)). Group 2 (9.45 95% CI (7.85-11.05)) followed and the lowest different GRS score was in group 1 (7.18 95% CI (5.95-8.41)). There was a significant difference amongst the three group (p = 0.018). The highest OSATS score difference was in group 3 (8.91 95% CI (7.49-10.33)), followed by group 2 (6.82 95% CI (5.55-8.09)), and the lowest score difference was in group 1 (5.45 95% CI (3.39-7.52)). There was a significant difference amongst the three groups (p = 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Combination training is the most superior training for improving anal sphincter injury repair in a simulation model.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06299-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis: Our aim was to compare residents' skill for anal sphincter injury repair in a silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model after video demonstration, simulation-based training, and a combination of both.
Methods: We randomized obstetrics and gynecology residents to video demonstration by an expert (group 1), simulation-based training (group 2) and a combination training model (group 3) using a validated silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model. We tested the anal sphincter injury repair skills of the residents using the global rating scale (GRS) and the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) scoring system. We assessed the validity of the GRS and OSATS scoring system in Bahasa using this anal sphincter injury model.
Results: Thirty-three residents were randomized into the three groups. Group 3 had the largest different in GRS scores (9.82 95% CI (8.45-11.19)). Group 2 (9.45 95% CI (7.85-11.05)) followed and the lowest different GRS score was in group 1 (7.18 95% CI (5.95-8.41)). There was a significant difference amongst the three group (p = 0.018). The highest OSATS score difference was in group 3 (8.91 95% CI (7.49-10.33)), followed by group 2 (6.82 95% CI (5.55-8.09)), and the lowest score difference was in group 1 (5.45 95% CI (3.39-7.52)). There was a significant difference amongst the three groups (p = 0.007).
Conclusions: Combination training is the most superior training for improving anal sphincter injury repair in a simulation model.
期刊介绍：
The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
