MP28: Development and validation of a novel three-dimensional printed thorax model simulator for the simulation-based training of tube thoracostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovation Concept: High-acuity, low-occurrence (HALO) procedures require skilled performance as they treat life-threatening conditions and are associated with significant morbidity when performed incorrectly. Simulation has proven useful for deliberate practice in a low stake setting. Tube thoracostomy is amendable to this approach. Commercially available trainers exist but often have limited realism and are prohibitively expensive particularly to non-academic centers. Three-dimensional (3D) printing produces models suitable for simulation, but no current simulator has been developed and validated for tube thoracostomy. The aim of this study was to develop such, a 3D-printed low-fidelity simulator validated for the simulation-based instruction of tube thoracostomy. Methods: The development of the simulator followed an iterative design cycle with collaboration between a design team and an emergency medicine expert. Its validity (face and content) was tested through hands-on practice and surveys completed by 15 acute-care practitioners. Participants performed the procedure on the simulator and then provided feedback through a mixed quantitative/qualitative product evaluation survey on appearance, realism (face validity) and value in procedural training (content validity). Mean values for overall appearance and content validity as a training tool were 4/5 and 4.3/5 respectively. All respondents felt the model was a useful adjunct. All but one stated it was a good replacement for pre-existing trainers. Curriculum, Tool, or Material: The model was initially printed in three parts using an Ultimaker 3 and Axiom Airwolf Dual 3D-printer. The ribcage was created using polylactic acid with polyvinyl alcohol support material. Printed sections were bonded using glue at interfaces requiring no flexibility. Flexible joints were made of varying amounts of thermoplastic polyurethane and thermoplastic elastomer. Skin overlay for the whole model was created with a cut out area for replaceable sections that subjects would incise to insert the chest tube. Skin was casted using platinum cured silicone in a 3D-printed mold. Total cost of all materials was roughly 80 CAD. Conclusion: The simulator was found to be a useful adjunct for the simulation-based practice of tube thoracostomy. As well, users found the model anatomically realistic and avoided high-cost and ethical issues. Further research will focus on optimization based on feedback and development into a multi-functional simulator for other HALO procedures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".