4.6 Article

Simulated Spinal Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak Repair: An Educational Model With Didactic and Technical Components

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 111-115

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000100

关键词

Cerebrospinal fluid repair; Durotomy; Neurosurgery simulation; Resident training

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: In the era of surgical resident work hour restrictions, the traditional apprenticeship model may provide fewer hours for neurosurgical residents to hone technical skills. Spinal dura mater closure or repair is 1 skill that is infrequently encountered, and persistent cerebrospinal fluid leaks are a potential morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To establish an educational curriculum to train residents in spinal dura mater closure with a novel durotomy repair model. METHODS: The Congress of Neurological Surgeons has developed a simulation-based model for durotomy closure with the ongoing efforts of their simulation educational committee. The core curriculum consists of didactic training materials and a technical simulation model of dural repair for the lumbar spine. RESULTS: Didactic pretest scores ranged from 4/11 (36%) to 10/11 (91%). Posttest scores ranged from 8/11 (73%) to 11/11 (100%). Overall, didactic improvements were demonstrated by all participants, with a mean improvement between pre- and posttest scores of 1.17 (18.5%; P = .02). The technical component consisted of 11 durotomy closures by 6 participants, where 4 participants performed multiple durotomies. Mean time to closure of the durotomy ranged from 490 to 546 seconds in the first and second closures, respectively (P = .66), whereby the median leak rate improved from 14 to 7 (P = .34). There were also demonstrative technical improvements by all. CONCLUSION: Simulated spinal dura mater repair appears to be a potentially valuable tool in the education of neurosurgery residents. The combination of a didactic and technical assessment appears to be synergistic in terms of educational development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据