眼科新手眼外伤模拟培训与尸体组织培训的比较:修复角膜裂伤模型。

Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) Pub Date : 2021-04-20 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1725093
Boonkit Purt, Timothy Ducey, Sean Sykes, Joseph F Pasternak, Denise S Ryan, Rose K Sia, Marcus H Colyer
{"title":"眼科新手眼外伤模拟培训与尸体组织培训的比较:修复角膜裂伤模型。","authors":"Boonkit Purt, Timothy Ducey, Sean Sykes, Joseph F Pasternak, Denise S Ryan, Rose K Sia, Marcus H Colyer","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1725093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the simulated tissue models may be used in place of animal-based model for corneal laceration repair for surgical skills acquisition. <b>Design</b>  Prospective randomized controlled trial. <b>Participants</b>  Seventy-nine military and civilian 2nd- and 3rd-year ophthalmology residents and 16 staff ophthalmologists participating in the Tri-Service Ocular Trauma Skills Laboratory at the Uniformed Services University (Bethesda, MD). <b>Methods</b>  Resident ophthalmologists underwent preliminary evaluation of their ability to close a 5-mm linear, full-thickness corneal laceration involving the visual axis. They then were randomized to undergo 90 to 120 minutes of either simulator-based (SIM) or swine cadaveric-tissue-based (CADAVER) corneal laceration repair. The same evaluation was performed post training. On a more limited basis, the study was repeated for attending ophthalmologists to act as a pilot for future analysis and test efficacy for \"refresher\" training. <b>Main Outcome Measures</b>  Successful wound closure with secondary outcomes of suture length, tension, depth, and orientation, as graded by attending ophthalmologists. <b>Results</b>  No significant difference in CADAVER versus SIM groups in the primary outcome of watertight wound closure of the corneal laceration. CADAVER group performed better than SIM group for certain metrics (suture depth, <i>p</i>  = 0.009; length, <i>p</i>  = 0.003; and tension, <i>p</i>  = 0.043) that are associated with poor wound closure and increased amount of induced corneal astigmatism. For attending ophthalmologists, six of the eight in each group (SIM and CADAVER) retained or improved their skills. <b>Conclusions</b>  For resident ophthalmologists, SIM training is sufficient for achieving the primary outcome of watertight wound closure. However, CADAVER training is superior for wound metrics for the ideal closure. For attending ophthalmologists, SIM training may be useful for retention of skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"13 1","pages":"e57-e65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/82/80/10-1055-s-0041-1725093.PMC9927999.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Simulation-Based versus Cadaveric-Tissue-Based Ocular Trauma Training on Novice Ophthalmologists: Repair of Corneal Laceration Model.\",\"authors\":\"Boonkit Purt, Timothy Ducey, Sean Sykes, Joseph F Pasternak, Denise S Ryan, Rose K Sia, Marcus H Colyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0041-1725093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the simulated tissue models may be used in place of animal-based model for corneal laceration repair for surgical skills acquisition. <b>Design</b>  Prospective randomized controlled trial. <b>Participants</b>  Seventy-nine military and civilian 2nd- and 3rd-year ophthalmology residents and 16 staff ophthalmologists participating in the Tri-Service Ocular Trauma Skills Laboratory at the Uniformed Services University (Bethesda, MD). <b>Methods</b>  Resident ophthalmologists underwent preliminary evaluation of their ability to close a 5-mm linear, full-thickness corneal laceration involving the visual axis. They then were randomized to undergo 90 to 120 minutes of either simulator-based (SIM) or swine cadaveric-tissue-based (CADAVER) corneal laceration repair. The same evaluation was performed post training. On a more limited basis, the study was repeated for attending ophthalmologists to act as a pilot for future analysis and test efficacy for \\\"refresher\\\" training. <b>Main Outcome Measures</b>  Successful wound closure with secondary outcomes of suture length, tension, depth, and orientation, as graded by attending ophthalmologists. <b>Results</b>  No significant difference in CADAVER versus SIM groups in the primary outcome of watertight wound closure of the corneal laceration. CADAVER group performed better than SIM group for certain metrics (suture depth, <i>p</i>  = 0.009; length, <i>p</i>  = 0.003; and tension, <i>p</i>  = 0.043) that are associated with poor wound closure and increased amount of induced corneal astigmatism. For attending ophthalmologists, six of the eight in each group (SIM and CADAVER) retained or improved their skills. <b>Conclusions</b>  For resident ophthalmologists, SIM training is sufficient for achieving the primary outcome of watertight wound closure. However, CADAVER training is superior for wound metrics for the ideal closure. For attending ophthalmologists, SIM training may be useful for retention of skills.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"e57-e65\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/82/80/10-1055-s-0041-1725093.PMC9927999.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1725093\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1725093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本研究旨在评估模拟组织模型是否可代替动物模型用于角膜裂伤修复,以掌握手术技能。设计 前瞻性随机对照试验。参与者 79 名二年级和三年级眼科住院医师和 16 名眼科医生,他们都参加了美国军警大学(马里兰州贝塞斯达)的三军眼外伤技能实验室。方法 对眼科住院医生缝合涉及视轴的 5 毫米线性全厚角膜裂伤的能力进行初步评估。然后,他们被随机分配接受 90 到 120 分钟的模拟(SIM)或猪尸体组织(CADAVER)角膜裂伤修复培训。培训后进行同样的评估。在更有限的基础上,对主治眼科医生重复进行研究,作为未来分析的试点,并测试 "进修 "培训的效果。主要结果 指标 成功缝合伤口,次要结果为缝合长度、张力、深度和方向,由眼科主治医生评分。结果 CADAVER 组与 SIM 组在角膜裂伤的伤口闭合不漏水这一主要结果上无明显差异。CADAVER 组在某些指标(缝合深度,p = 0.009;长度,p = 0.003;张力,p = 0.043)上优于 SIM 组,而这些指标与伤口闭合不良和诱发角膜散光增加有关。对于眼科主治医师而言,每组(SIM 和 CADAVER)的八名主治医师中有六名保持或提高了他们的技能。结论 对于住院眼科医生来说,SIM 培训足以达到伤口闭合不漏水的主要效果。但是,CADAVER 培训在理想闭合的伤口度量方面更胜一筹。对于眼科主治医师来说,SIM 培训可能有助于保持技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of Simulation-Based versus Cadaveric-Tissue-Based Ocular Trauma Training on Novice Ophthalmologists: Repair of Corneal Laceration Model.

Comparison of Simulation-Based versus Cadaveric-Tissue-Based Ocular Trauma Training on Novice Ophthalmologists: Repair of Corneal Laceration Model.

Comparison of Simulation-Based versus Cadaveric-Tissue-Based Ocular Trauma Training on Novice Ophthalmologists: Repair of Corneal Laceration Model.

Comparison of Simulation-Based versus Cadaveric-Tissue-Based Ocular Trauma Training on Novice Ophthalmologists: Repair of Corneal Laceration Model.

Purpose  The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the simulated tissue models may be used in place of animal-based model for corneal laceration repair for surgical skills acquisition. Design  Prospective randomized controlled trial. Participants  Seventy-nine military and civilian 2nd- and 3rd-year ophthalmology residents and 16 staff ophthalmologists participating in the Tri-Service Ocular Trauma Skills Laboratory at the Uniformed Services University (Bethesda, MD). Methods  Resident ophthalmologists underwent preliminary evaluation of their ability to close a 5-mm linear, full-thickness corneal laceration involving the visual axis. They then were randomized to undergo 90 to 120 minutes of either simulator-based (SIM) or swine cadaveric-tissue-based (CADAVER) corneal laceration repair. The same evaluation was performed post training. On a more limited basis, the study was repeated for attending ophthalmologists to act as a pilot for future analysis and test efficacy for "refresher" training. Main Outcome Measures  Successful wound closure with secondary outcomes of suture length, tension, depth, and orientation, as graded by attending ophthalmologists. Results  No significant difference in CADAVER versus SIM groups in the primary outcome of watertight wound closure of the corneal laceration. CADAVER group performed better than SIM group for certain metrics (suture depth, p  = 0.009; length, p  = 0.003; and tension, p  = 0.043) that are associated with poor wound closure and increased amount of induced corneal astigmatism. For attending ophthalmologists, six of the eight in each group (SIM and CADAVER) retained or improved their skills. Conclusions  For resident ophthalmologists, SIM training is sufficient for achieving the primary outcome of watertight wound closure. However, CADAVER training is superior for wound metrics for the ideal closure. For attending ophthalmologists, SIM training may be useful for retention of skills.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信