MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020688520 · doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e3182604b49

Training Femoral Neck Screw Insertion Skills to Surgical Trainees

2012· article· en· W2020688520 on OpenAlexaff
Markku Nousiainen, Daniel Omoto, Patrick O. Zingg, Yoram A. Weil, Sami W. Mardam‐Bey, William C. Eward

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluoroscopyRadiographyRandomized controlled trialSession (web analytics)Medical physicsFemoral neckPhysical therapySurgeryOsteoporosisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: : Femoral neck fractures are among the most common orthopaedic injuries impacting the health care system. Surgical management of such fractures with cannulated screws is a commonly performed procedure. The acquisition of surgical skills necessary to perform this procedure typically involves learning on real patients with fluoroscopic guidance. This study attempts to determine if a novel computer-navigated training model improves the learning of this basic surgical skill. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, and controlled study was conducted using surgical trainees with no prior experience in surgically managing femoral neck fractures. After a training session, participants underwent a pretest by performing the surgical task (screw placement) on a simulated hip fracture using fluoroscopic guidance. Immediately after, participants were randomized into either undergoing a training session using conventional fluoroscopy or computer-based navigation. Immediate posttest, retention (4 weeks later), and transfer tests were performed. Performance during the tests was determined by radiographic analysis of hardware placement. RESULTS: Screw placement by trainees was ultimately equal to the level of an expert surgeon with either training technique. Participants who trained with computer navigation took fewer attempts to position hardware and used less fluoroscopy time than those trained with fluoroscopy. When those trained with fluoroscopy used computer navigation at the transfer test, less fluoroscopy time and dosage was used. The concurrent augmented feedback provided by computer navigation did not affect the learning of this basic surgical skill in surgical novices. No compromise in learning occurred if the surgical novice trained with one type of technology and transferred to using the other. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that computer navigation may be safely used to train surgical novices in a basic procedure. This model avoids using both live patients and harmful radiation without a compromise in the acquisition of a 3-dimensional technical skill.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207