- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "surgical training"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item 3D printing in surgical simulation: emphasized importance in the COVID-19 pandemic era(Future Medicine, 2021-03-01) Michaels, Ross; Witsberger, Chelsey A; Powell, Allison R; Koka, Krishna; Cohen, Katheryn; Nourmohammadi, Zahra; Green, Glen E; Zopf, David A; Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, School of MedicineHistorically, surgical training was an apprenticeship model of see one, do one, teach one. However, a proficiency-based training approach has become increasingly implemented for assessing surgical skills with performance scores used as benchmarks to track trainee proficiency [1]. Surgical simulators are starting to be utilized more to assess proficiency in trainees on certain procedures with many residency programs having simulation as a piece of their training curriculum. Today, simulation in surgical training takes many forms. Live animals and cadavers are often implemented since these simulators can simulate operating on realistic tissue and on human anatomy respectively. There are also basic simulators that are models that simulate a component of an operation such as suturing or knot-tying. These help trainees practice certain surgical skills necessary for completing a procedure. Some of these simulators have become more complex and simulate several steps or even an entire procedure such as joint replacements and fixating fractures [1]. With the increased availability in 3D printing technology and a push toward personalized medicine, 3D printing research has exponentially increased in recent years and has been an area of investigation for the development of surgical simulators [2]. Using a 3D printer to construct models for simulation leads to vast opportunity to customize the simulator while significantly reducing cost. Prior to the advent of 3D printing and additive manufacturing, computed tomography (CT) data were used to construct anatomic models using subtractive manufacturing with the first model made in 1979 [3]. Commercial 3D printers became available in the 1980s and were introduced into the medical field in 1994 [4]. Currently, 3D printing has several surgical applications including anatomic models for surgical planning, simulation and education; implants and prostheses; and surgical guides [3].Item Development and Validation of an Objective Scoring Tool for Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Scoring for Partial Nephrectomy(Mary Ann Liebert, 2021) Iqbal, Umar; Jing, Zhe; Ahmed, Youssef; Elsayed, Ahmed S.; Rogers, Craig G.; Boris, Ronald S.; Porter, James Robert; Allaf, Mohamad E.; Badani, Ketan K.; Stifelman, Michael D.; Kaouk, Jihad; Terakawa, Tomoaki; Hinata, Nobuyuki; Aboumohamed, Ahmed; Kauffman, Eric; Li, Qiang; Abaza, Ronney; Guru, Khurshid A.; Hussein, Ahmed; Eun, Daniel; Urology, School of MedicineObjective: To develop a structured and objective scoring tool for assessment of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN): Scoring for Partial Nephrectomy (SPaN). Materials and Methods:Content development: RAPN was deconstructed into 6 domains by a multi-institutional panel of 10 expert robotic surgeons. Performance on each domain was represented on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, with specific descriptions of anchors 1, 3, and 5. Content validation: The Delphi methodology was utilized to achieve consensus about the description of each anchor for each domain in terms of appropriateness of the skill assessed, objectiveness, clarity, and unambiguous wording. The content validity index (CVI) of ≥0.75 was set as cutoff for consensus. Reliability: 15 de-identified videos of RAPN were utilized to determine the inter-rater reliability using linearly weighted percent agreement, and Construct validation of SPaN was described in terms of median scores and odds ratios. Results: The expert panel reached consensus (CVI ≥0.75) after 2 rounds. Consensus was achieved for 36 (67%) statements in the first round and 18 (33%) after the second round. The final six-domain SPaN included Exposure of the kidney; Identification and dissection of the ureter and gonadal vessels; Dissection of the hilum; Tumor localization and exposure; Clamping and tumor resection; and Renorrhaphy. The linearly weighted percent agreement was >0.75 for all domains. There was no difference between median scores for any domain between attendings and trainees. Conclusion: Despite the lack of significant construct validity, SPaN is a structured, reliable, and procedure-specific tool that can objectively assesses technical proficiency for RAPN.Item How I found a mentor(Elsevier, 2017) Alberton, Luis F.; Rudersdorf, Patrick D.; Herrmann, Jeremy L.; Department of Surgery, IU School of MedicineItem Response to “Proving the Effectiveness of the Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery (FRS) Skills Curriculum A Single-blinded, Multispecialty, Multi-institutional Randomized Control Trial” Not only surgeon's manual skills...”(Wolters Kluwer, 2020-12) Satava, Richard M.; Stefanidis, Dimitrios; Levy, Jeffrey S.; Smith, Roger; Martin, John R.; Monfared, Sara; Timsina, Lava R.; Wardkes Darzi, Ara; Moglia, Andrea; Brand, Timothy C.; Dorin, Ryan P.; Dumon, Kristoffel R.; Francone, Todd D.; Georgiou, Evangelos; Goh, Alvin C.; Marcet, Jorge E.; Martino, Martin A.; Sudan, Ranjan; Vale, Justin; Gallagher, Anthony G.; Surgery, School of Medicine