Erratum to: Do Skills Acquired from Training with a Wire Navigation Simulator Transfer to a Mock Operating Room Environment?

Steven A. Long, G. Thomas, M. Karam, D. Anderson
{"title":"Erratum to: Do Skills Acquired from Training with a Wire Navigation Simulator Transfer to a Mock Operating Room Environment?","authors":"Steven A. Long, G. Thomas, M. Karam, D. Anderson","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000000958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND Skills training and simulation play an increasingly important role in orthopaedic surgical education. The intent of simulation is to improve performance in the operating room (OR), a trait known as transfer validity. No prior studies have explored how simulator-based wire navigation training can transfer to higher-level tasks. Additionally, there is a lack of knowledge on the format in which wire navigation training should be deployed. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES (1) Which training methods (didactic content, deliberate practice, or proficiency-based practice) lead to the greatest improvement in performing a wire navigation task? (2) Does a resident's performance using a wire navigation simulator correlate with his or her performance on a higher-level simulation task in a mock OR involving a C-arm, a radiopaque femur model, and a large soft tissue surrogate surrounding the femur? METHODS Fifty-five residents from four different medical centers participated in this study over the course of 2 years. The residents were divided into three groups: traditional training (included first-year residents from the University of Iowa, University of Minnesota, and the Mayo Clinic), deliberate practice (included first-year residents from the University of Nebraska and the University of Minnesota), and proficiency training (included first-year residents from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic). Residents in each group received a didactic introduction covering the task of placing a wire to treat an intertrochanteric fracture, and this was considered traditional training. Deliberate practice involved training on a radiation-free simulator that provided specific feedback throughout the practice sessions. Proficiency training used the same simulator to train on specific components of wire navigation, like finding the correct starting point, to proficiency before moving to assessment. The wire navigation simulator uses a camera system to track the wire and provide computer-generated fluoroscopy. After training, task performance was assessed in a mock OR. Residents from each group were assessed in the mock OR based on their use of fluoroscopy, total time, and tip-apex distance. Correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between resident performance on the simulator and in the mock OR. RESULTS Residents in the two simulation-based training groups had a lower tip-apex distance than those in the traditional training group (didactic training tip-apex distance: 24 ± 7 mm, 95% CI, 20-27; deliberate practice tip-apex distance: 16 ± 5 mm, 95% CI, 13-19, p = 0.001; proficiency training tip-apex distance: 15 ± 4 mm, 95% CI, 13-18, p < 0.001). Residents in the proficiency training group used more images than those in the other groups (didactic training: 22 ± 12 images, p = 0.041; deliberate practice: 19 ± 8 images; p = 0.012, proficiency training: 31 ± 14 images). In the two simulation-based training groups, resident performance on the simulator, that is, tip-apex distance, image use, and overall time, was correlated with performance in the mock OR (r-square = 0.15 [p = 0.030], 0.61 [p < 0.001], and 0.43 [p < 0.001], respectively). CONCLUSIONS As residency programs are designing their curriculum to train wire navigation skills, emphasis should be placed on providing an environment that allows for deliberate practice with immediate feedback about their performance. Simulators such as the one presented in this study offer a safe environment for residents to learn this key skill. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II, therapeutic study.","PeriodicalId":10465,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000958","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND Skills training and simulation play an increasingly important role in orthopaedic surgical education. The intent of simulation is to improve performance in the operating room (OR), a trait known as transfer validity. No prior studies have explored how simulator-based wire navigation training can transfer to higher-level tasks. Additionally, there is a lack of knowledge on the format in which wire navigation training should be deployed. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES (1) Which training methods (didactic content, deliberate practice, or proficiency-based practice) lead to the greatest improvement in performing a wire navigation task? (2) Does a resident's performance using a wire navigation simulator correlate with his or her performance on a higher-level simulation task in a mock OR involving a C-arm, a radiopaque femur model, and a large soft tissue surrogate surrounding the femur? METHODS Fifty-five residents from four different medical centers participated in this study over the course of 2 years. The residents were divided into three groups: traditional training (included first-year residents from the University of Iowa, University of Minnesota, and the Mayo Clinic), deliberate practice (included first-year residents from the University of Nebraska and the University of Minnesota), and proficiency training (included first-year residents from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic). Residents in each group received a didactic introduction covering the task of placing a wire to treat an intertrochanteric fracture, and this was considered traditional training. Deliberate practice involved training on a radiation-free simulator that provided specific feedback throughout the practice sessions. Proficiency training used the same simulator to train on specific components of wire navigation, like finding the correct starting point, to proficiency before moving to assessment. The wire navigation simulator uses a camera system to track the wire and provide computer-generated fluoroscopy. After training, task performance was assessed in a mock OR. Residents from each group were assessed in the mock OR based on their use of fluoroscopy, total time, and tip-apex distance. Correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between resident performance on the simulator and in the mock OR. RESULTS Residents in the two simulation-based training groups had a lower tip-apex distance than those in the traditional training group (didactic training tip-apex distance: 24 ± 7 mm, 95% CI, 20-27; deliberate practice tip-apex distance: 16 ± 5 mm, 95% CI, 13-19, p = 0.001; proficiency training tip-apex distance: 15 ± 4 mm, 95% CI, 13-18, p < 0.001). Residents in the proficiency training group used more images than those in the other groups (didactic training: 22 ± 12 images, p = 0.041; deliberate practice: 19 ± 8 images; p = 0.012, proficiency training: 31 ± 14 images). In the two simulation-based training groups, resident performance on the simulator, that is, tip-apex distance, image use, and overall time, was correlated with performance in the mock OR (r-square = 0.15 [p = 0.030], 0.61 [p < 0.001], and 0.43 [p < 0.001], respectively). CONCLUSIONS As residency programs are designing their curriculum to train wire navigation skills, emphasis should be placed on providing an environment that allows for deliberate practice with immediate feedback about their performance. Simulators such as the one presented in this study offer a safe environment for residents to learn this key skill. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II, therapeutic study.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从有线导航模拟器训练中获得的技能是否可以转移到模拟手术室环境中?
背景技能训练与模拟在骨科外科教学中发挥着越来越重要的作用。模拟的目的是提高手术室(OR)的表现,这是一种被称为转移效度的特征。之前没有研究探索如何将基于模拟器的有线导航训练转移到更高级别的任务中。此外,还缺乏关于有线导航培训应采用何种形式的知识。(1)哪种训练方法(教学内容、刻意练习还是基于熟练程度的练习)能最大程度地提高导线导航任务的执行能力?(2)住院医生使用导线导航模拟器的表现是否与他或她在涉及c型臂、不透射线的股骨模型和股骨周围大软组织替代物的模拟手术室中更高级别模拟任务的表现相关?方法来自四个不同医疗中心的55名住院医师参与了为期2年的研究。住院医生被分为三组:传统训练组(包括来自爱荷华大学、明尼苏达大学和梅奥诊所的一年级住院医生)、刻意练习组(包括来自内布拉斯加州大学和明尼苏达大学的一年级住院医生)和熟练训练组(包括来自明尼苏达大学和梅奥诊所的一年级住院医生)。每个组的住院医生都接受了一个说教性的介绍,包括放置金属丝治疗转子间骨折的任务,这被认为是传统的训练。刻意练习包括在无辐射模拟器上进行训练,在整个练习过程中提供具体的反馈。熟练度培训使用相同的模拟器来训练电线导航的特定组件,比如找到正确的起点,在进入评估之前熟练度。导线导航模拟器使用一个摄像系统来跟踪导线,并提供计算机生成的透视。训练结束后,在模拟手术室中评估任务表现。每个组的住院医生在模拟手术室中根据他们使用透视、总时间和尖端-尖端距离进行评估。进行相关分析以检查在模拟器和模拟手术室中的住院表现之间的关系。结果两个模拟训练组的住院医生的尖尖距离低于传统训练组(教学训练的尖尖距离:24±7 mm, 95% CI, 20-27;刻意练习尖端距离:16±5 mm, 95% CI, 13-19, p = 0.001;熟练训练尖端距离:15±4 mm, 95% CI, 13-18, p < 0.001)。熟练训练组住院医师使用图像数量多于其他组(教学训练组:22±12张图像,p = 0.041;刻意练习:19±8个图像;P = 0.012,熟练训练:31±14张图像)。在两个基于模拟的训练组中,模拟器上的常驻表现,即尖端距离、图像使用和总时间,与模拟OR中的表现相关(r-square分别= 0.15 [p = 0.030]、0.61 [p < 0.001]和0.43 [p < 0.001])。当住院医师项目设计他们的课程来训练导线导航技能时,重点应该放在提供一个允许刻意练习的环境上,并对他们的表现进行即时反馈。本研究中的模拟器为住院医生学习这一关键技能提供了一个安全的环境。证据等级:II级,治疗性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CORR Insights®: What is the Geographic Distribution of Women Orthopaedic Surgeons Throughout the United States? What Are the Rates and Trends of Women Authors in Three High-Impact Orthopaedic Journals from 2006-2017? CORR Insights®: Chair Versus Chairman: Does Orthopaedics Use the Gendered Term More Than Other Specialties? CORR Insights®: Does the Proportion of Women in Orthopaedic Leadership Roles Reflect the Gender Composition of Specialty Societies? Women Are at Higher Risk for Concussions Due to Ball or Equipment Contact in Soccer and Lacrosse.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1