Learning brain aneurysm microsurgical skills in a human placenta model: predictive validity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE Surgery for brain aneurysms is technically demanding. In recent years, the process to learn the technical skills necessary for these challenging procedures has been affected by a decrease in the number of surgical cases available and progressive restrictions on resident training hours. To overcome these limitations, surgical simulators such as cadaver heads and human placenta models have been developed. However, the effectiveness of these models in improving technical skills is unknown. This study assessed concurrent and predictive validity of brain aneurysm surgery simulation in a human placenta model compared with a "live" human brain cadaveric model. METHODS Two human cadaver heads and 30 human placentas were used. Twelve neurosurgeons participated in the concurrent validity part of this study, each operating on 1 human cadaver head aneurysm model and 1 human placenta model. Simulators were evaluated regarding their ability to simulate different surgical steps encountered during real surgery. The time to complete the entire aneurysm task in each simulator was analyzed. The predictive validity component of the study involved 9 neurosurgical residents divided into 3 groups to perform simulation exercises, each lasting 6 weeks. The training for the 3 groups consisted of educational video only (3 residents), human cadaver only (3 residents), and human placenta only (3 residents). All residents had equivalent microsurgical experience with superficial brain tumor surgery. After completing their practice training, residents in each of the 3 simulation groups performed surgery for an unruptured middle cerebral artery (MCA) aneurysm, and their performance was assessed by an experienced vascular neurosurgeon who watched the operative videos. RESULTS All human cadaver heads and human placentas were suitable to simulate brain aneurysm surgery. In the concurrent validity portion of the experiment, the placenta model required a longer time (p < 0.001) than cadavers to complete the task. The placenta model was considered more effective than the cadaver model in simulating sylvian fissure splitting, bipolar coagulation of oozing microvessels, and aneurysm neck and dome dissection. Both models were equally effective in simulating neck aneurysm clipping, while the cadaver model was considered superior for simulation of intraoperative rupture and for reproduction of real anatomy during simulation. In the predictive validity portion of the experiment, residents were evaluated for 4 tasks: sylvian fissure dissection, microvessel bipolar coagulation, aneurysm dissection, and aneurysm clipping. Residents trained in the human placenta simulator consistently had the highest overall performance scores when compared with those who had trained in the cadaver model and those who had simply watched operative videos (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The human placenta biological simulator provides excellent simulation for some critical tasks of aneurysm surgery such as splitting of the sylvian fissure, dissection of the aneurysm neck and dome, and bipolar coagulation of surrounding microvessels. When performing surgery for an unruptured MCA aneurysm, residents who had trained in the human placenta model performed better than residents trained with other simulation scenarios/models. In this age of reduced exposure to aneurysm surgery and restrictions on resident working hours, the placenta model is a valid simulation for microneurosurgery with striking similarities with real surgery.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».