Evaluating a novel 3D printed model for simulating Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ).

3D printing Cervical dysplasia Education Gynecology Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) Loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) Patient safety Simulation Teaching

Journal

3D printing in medicine
ISSN: 2365-6271
Titre abrégé: 3D Print Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721758

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Jun 2022
Historique:
received: 31 12 2021
accepted: 30 05 2022
entrez: 8 6 2022
pubmed: 9 6 2022
medline: 9 6 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Electrosurgical excisions are common procedures for treating cervical dysplasia and are often seen as minor surgeries. Yet, thorough training of this intervention is required, as there are considerable consequences of inadequate resections, e.g. preterm birth, the risk of recurrence, injuries and many more. Unfortunately, there is a lack of sufficiently validated possibilities of simulating electrosurgeries, which focus on high fidelity and patient safety. A novel 3D printed simulator for examination and electrosurgical treatment of dysplastic areas of the cervix was compared with a conventional simulator. Sixty medical students experienced a seminar about cervical dysplasia. Group A underwent the seminar with the conventional and Group B with the novel simulator. After a theoretical introduction, the students were randomly assigned by picking a ticket from a box and went on to perform the hands-on training with their respective simulator. Each student first obtained colposcopic examination training. Then he or she performed five electrosurgical excisions (each). This was assessed with a validated score, to visualize their learning curve. Furthermore, adequate and inadequate resections and contacts between electrosurgical loop and vagina or speculum were counted. Both groups also assessed the seminar and their simulator with 18 questions (Likert-scales, 1-10, 1 = strongly agree / very good, 10 = strongly disagree / very bad). Group B additionally assessed the novel simulator with four questions (similar Likert-scales, 1-10). Nine of 18 questions showed statistically significant differences favoring Group B (p < 0.05). Group B also achieved more adequate R0-resections and less contacts between electrosurgical loop and vagina or speculum. The learning curves of the performed resections favored the novel simulator of Group B without statistically significant differences. The four questions focusing on certain aspects of the novel simulator indicate high appreciation of the students with a mean score of 1.6 points. The presented novel simulator shows several advantages compared to the existing model. Thus, novice gynecologists can be supported with a higher quality of simulation to improve their training and thereby patient safety.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Electrosurgical excisions are common procedures for treating cervical dysplasia and are often seen as minor surgeries. Yet, thorough training of this intervention is required, as there are considerable consequences of inadequate resections, e.g. preterm birth, the risk of recurrence, injuries and many more. Unfortunately, there is a lack of sufficiently validated possibilities of simulating electrosurgeries, which focus on high fidelity and patient safety.
METHODS METHODS
A novel 3D printed simulator for examination and electrosurgical treatment of dysplastic areas of the cervix was compared with a conventional simulator. Sixty medical students experienced a seminar about cervical dysplasia. Group A underwent the seminar with the conventional and Group B with the novel simulator. After a theoretical introduction, the students were randomly assigned by picking a ticket from a box and went on to perform the hands-on training with their respective simulator. Each student first obtained colposcopic examination training. Then he or she performed five electrosurgical excisions (each). This was assessed with a validated score, to visualize their learning curve. Furthermore, adequate and inadequate resections and contacts between electrosurgical loop and vagina or speculum were counted. Both groups also assessed the seminar and their simulator with 18 questions (Likert-scales, 1-10, 1 = strongly agree / very good, 10 = strongly disagree / very bad). Group B additionally assessed the novel simulator with four questions (similar Likert-scales, 1-10).
RESULTS RESULTS
Nine of 18 questions showed statistically significant differences favoring Group B (p < 0.05). Group B also achieved more adequate R0-resections and less contacts between electrosurgical loop and vagina or speculum. The learning curves of the performed resections favored the novel simulator of Group B without statistically significant differences. The four questions focusing on certain aspects of the novel simulator indicate high appreciation of the students with a mean score of 1.6 points.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The presented novel simulator shows several advantages compared to the existing model. Thus, novice gynecologists can be supported with a higher quality of simulation to improve their training and thereby patient safety.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35674843
doi: 10.1186/s41205-022-00143-x
pii: 10.1186/s41205-022-00143-x
pmc: PMC9175315
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

15

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

BJOG. 2011 May;118(6):679-84
pubmed: 21083861
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 Mar;132(3):266-71
pubmed: 26643302
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Jan;22(1):99-100
pubmed: 12521750
J Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Sep;27(5):e54
pubmed: 27401478
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Aug;19(4):545-61
pubmed: 16150393
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jul;120(1):166-72
pubmed: 22914406
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;211(6):706.e1-3
pubmed: 24887318
J Reprod Med. 2003 Jan;48(1):49-51
pubmed: 12611096
J Reprod Med. 2004 Feb;49(2):76-8
pubmed: 15018432
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jun;96(23):e7026
pubmed: 28591034
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Dec;18(12):1665-1679
pubmed: 29126708
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018 Jun;297(6):1517-1523
pubmed: 29602979
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2014;77(4):240-4
pubmed: 24752130
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2012;33(2):214-6
pubmed: 22611967
Simul Healthc. 2015 Apr;10(2):116-21
pubmed: 25710314
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016 Dec;76(12):1339-1344
pubmed: 28017975
J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Jun;5(2):320-2
pubmed: 24404281
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Mar;305(3):703-712
pubmed: 34491415
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2018 Dec;61(12):1528-1535
pubmed: 30397722
BJOG. 2012 May;119(6):685-91
pubmed: 22329499
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;206(6):535.e1-4
pubmed: 22360922
BJOG. 2015 Aug;122(9):1191-9
pubmed: 25854594
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017 Apr;21(2):129-136
pubmed: 27977541
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 1997 Apr;1(2):67-72
pubmed: 25950878
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2013;75(3):163-8
pubmed: 23296191
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 Feb;301(2):611-618
pubmed: 31853713
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Aug;42(3):289-91
pubmed: 12230066
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct;219(4):377.e1-377.e7
pubmed: 30063903
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1997;26(1):64-70
pubmed: 9091546
Simul Healthc. 2017 Oct;12(5):304-307
pubmed: 28609316
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 02;11:CD012847
pubmed: 29095502
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2019 Mar;62(2):138-141
pubmed: 30918883
BMJ. 2016 Jul 28;354:i3633
pubmed: 27469988
J Glob Oncol. 2016 Oct 12;3(5):635-657
pubmed: 29094101
Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Sep;94(3):474-5
pubmed: 10472881
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
BJOG. 2018 Apr;125(5):545-553
pubmed: 28603909
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Mar;299(3):817-824
pubmed: 30607581

Auteurs

Matthias Kiesel (M)

Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 4, 97080, Würzburg, Germany. kiesel_m2@ukw.de.

Inga Beyers (I)

Institute of Electric Power Systems (IfES), Leibniz Universität Hannover, Appelstraße 9A, 30167, Hannover, Germany.

Adam Kalisz (A)

Department of Electrical, Electronic and Communication Engineering, Information Technology (LIKE), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Am Wolfsmantel 33, Erlangen, Germany.

Achim Wöckel (A)

Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 4, 97080, Würzburg, Germany.

Sanja Löb (S)

Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 4, 97080, Würzburg, Germany.

Tanja Schlaiss (T)

Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 4, 97080, Würzburg, Germany.

Christine Wulff (C)

Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 4, 97080, Würzburg, Germany.

Joachim Diessner (J)

Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 4, 97080, Würzburg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH