4.1 Article

Neurosurgical training with simulators: a novel neuroendoscopy model

期刊

CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 345-349

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-015-2936-7

关键词

Neuroendoscopy; Surgical training; Simulation; Live animalmodel; Neurosurgical education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to present a novel neuroendoscopy simulation model in live animals, with the objective of enhancing patient safety with realistic surgical training. A simulation model using live Wistar rats was designed after the approval of the Institutional Committee for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Under anesthesia, a hydroperitoneum was created in order to simulate a cavity with mesenteric membranes and vessels, viscera, and a solid and bleeding tumor (the liver) floating in a liquid environment. For validation purposes, we evaluated trainees' basal and final skills for each neuroendoscopic procedure, and we also acknowledged trainees' and instructors' opinion on the model's realism. This model is simple and low cost effective for complete and real-life training in neuroendoscopy, with the possibility of performing all the basic and advanced endoscopic procedures, such as endoscopic exploration, membrane fenestration, vessel coagulation, hematoma evacuation, and endoscopic tumor biopsy and resection using a ventricular neuroendoscopy set. Although the model does not represent human ventricular anatomy, a reliable simulation is possible in real living tissue in a liquid environment. Trainees' skills improvements were notorious. Minimally invasive endoscopic techniques require specific training. Simulation training can improve and accelerate the learning curve. The presented training model allows simulating the different neuroendoscopic procedures. We believe that due to its practical possibilities, its simplicity, low cost, reproducibility, and reality, being live animal tissue, it can be considered a fundamental model within a complete training program on neuroendoscopy.

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

4.1
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