Validation of a novel birth simulator for impacted fetal head at cesarean section: An observational simulation study.
cesarean section
impacted fetal head
simulation
training
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2023
01 2023
Historique:
revised:
08
07
2022
received:
11
03
2022
accepted:
16
07
2022
pubmed:
10
11
2022
medline:
27
12
2022
entrez:
9
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Impacted fetal head (IFH) is a challenging complication of cesarean section (CS) associated with significant morbidity. Training opportunities for IFH have been reported as inconsistent and inadequate. This study assessed the validity of a novel birth simulator for IFH at cesarean section. Obstetricians and midwives collaborated with model-making company, Limbs & Things (UK), to modify the original PROMPT Flex® simulator and develop a new "Enhanced CS Module" for IFH at cesarean section. Changes included addition of a retractable uterus and restricted pelvic inlet, and the fetal mannequin was modified to allow accurate limb articulation and flexion at the waist. Obstetricians and midwives from three maternity units in Southwest England were individually recorded, each undertaking three simulated scenarios of IFH at cesarean section. Obstetricians were asked to deliver the fetal head and midwives, to perform a vaginal push-up. Participants completed a questionnaire on realism (face validity) and usefulness for training (content validity) with five-point Likert scale responses. Construct validity was assessed by testing an a priori hypothesis that "experts" (consultant obstetricians with >7 years' experience) would be more likely to achieve delivery than "novices" (registrars with <7 years' experience). Performance variables were compared between groups using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U-tests. In all, 105 simulated scenarios were undertaken by 35 obstetricians and midwives. A range of techniques were employed to deliver the IFH including change of hand, vaginal disimpaction and reverse breech extraction. Overall, 86% (30/35) described the model as fairly (4)/very realistic (5) (median = 4, interquartile range [IQR] = 4-5). The model was considered fairly (4)/very useful (5) for training by 97% (34/35; median = 5; IQR = 5-5). Experts delivered the fetal head in all simulations (36/36) and novices delivered the head in 76.9% (30/39) (p = 0.002). Experts delivered the fetal head 58% quicker than novices (median = 66.8 s, IQR = 53-86 vs median = 104 s, IQR = 67.7-137). This novel birth trainer realistically simulates IFH at cesarean section and allows rehearsal of all disimpaction techniques. It was reported to be very useful for training and distinguishes between novice and expert obstetricians. Techniques for IFH are difficult to learn experientially. Simulation is likely to provide an effective and safe form of training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36349412
doi: 10.1111/aogs.14432
pmc: PMC9780722
doi:
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
43-50Subventions
Organisme : David Telling Charitable Trust
Organisme : Health Education England South West Simulation Network
Organisme : PROMPT Maternity Foundation
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
Références
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Mar;124(3):270-3
pubmed: 24373706
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022 Apr;271:88-92
pubmed: 35168126
Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015 Nov;70(11):719-24
pubmed: 26584721
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Apr;41(3):360-366
pubmed: 32723197
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 31;(1):CD004944
pubmed: 26827159
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(6):545-9
pubmed: 20701498
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 Jan;102(1):43-50
pubmed: 36349412
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Mar 15;148(6):707-10
pubmed: 6702937
J Perinat Med. 2022 Feb 07;50(4):446-456
pubmed: 35119802
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011 Mar;93(2):152-6
pubmed: 22041146
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Jun;261:85-91
pubmed: 33901776
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 May;37(4):459-463
pubmed: 28141942
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Feb;124(2):99-105
pubmed: 24290068
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jan;91(1):119-24
pubmed: 9464734
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Jul;262:1-6
pubmed: 33984724
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Sep;197(3):306.e1-5
pubmed: 17826431
BJOG. 2005 Jul;112(7):997-9
pubmed: 15958008
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;125(2):369-374
pubmed: 25568993
BJOG. 2011 Mar;118(4):474-9
pubmed: 21199293
BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):337-45
pubmed: 26301522
BJOG. 2016 Jan;123(1):111-8
pubmed: 25688719
Pediatrics. 2014 Jun;133(6):1091-101
pubmed: 24819576
J Endourol. 2007 Mar;21(3):244-7
pubmed: 17444766
BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):336
pubmed: 26810673
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007 May;27(4):427-8
pubmed: 17654204
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Jun;150(2):147-51
pubmed: 20362383
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Apr;59(2):308-311
pubmed: 30773612
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Jan 15;22(1):34
pubmed: 35033006
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Oct;170(2):341-7
pubmed: 23891388