Introduction and Hypothesis <p>Our aim was to compare residents’ skill for anal sphincter injury repair in a silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model after video demonstration, simulation-based training, and a combination of both.</p> Methods <p>We randomized obstetrics and gynecology residents to video demonstration by an expert (group 1), simulation-based training (group 2) and a combination training model (group 3) using a validated silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model. We tested the anal sphincter injury repair skills of the residents using the global rating scale (GRS) and the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) scoring system. We assessed the validity of the GRS and OSATS scoring system in Bahasa using this anal sphincter injury model.</p> Results <p>Thirty-three residents were randomized into the three groups. Group 3 had the largest different in GRS scores (9.82 95% CI (8.45–11.19)). Group 2 (9.45 95% CI (7.85–11.05)) followed and the lowest different GRS score was in group 1 (7.18 95% CI (5.95–8.41)). There was a significant difference amongst the three group (<i>p</i> = 0.018). The highest OSATS score difference was in group 3 (8.91 95% CI (7.49–10.33)), followed by group 2 (6.82 95% CI (5.55–8.09)), and the lowest score difference was in group 1 (5.45 95% CI (3.39–7.52)). There was a significant difference amongst the three groups (<i>p</i> = 0.007).</p> Conclusions <p>Combination training is the most superior training for improving anal sphincter injury repair in a simulation model.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Randomized Comparison of Video Demonstration, Simulation-Based Training, and Combination Using Silicone-Latex Simulation for Anal Sphincter Injury Repair in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents

  • Riska Wahyuningtyas,
  • Eighty Mardiyan Kurniawati,
  • Gatut Hardianto,
  • Hari Paraton,
  • Tri Hastono Setyo Hadi,
  • Djoko Kuswanto

摘要

Introduction and Hypothesis

Our aim was to compare residents’ skill for anal sphincter injury repair in a silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model after video demonstration, simulation-based training, and a combination of both.

Methods

We randomized obstetrics and gynecology residents to video demonstration by an expert (group 1), simulation-based training (group 2) and a combination training model (group 3) using a validated silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model. We tested the anal sphincter injury repair skills of the residents using the global rating scale (GRS) and the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) scoring system. We assessed the validity of the GRS and OSATS scoring system in Bahasa using this anal sphincter injury model.

Results

Thirty-three residents were randomized into the three groups. Group 3 had the largest different in GRS scores (9.82 95% CI (8.45–11.19)). Group 2 (9.45 95% CI (7.85–11.05)) followed and the lowest different GRS score was in group 1 (7.18 95% CI (5.95–8.41)). There was a significant difference amongst the three group (p = 0.018). The highest OSATS score difference was in group 3 (8.91 95% CI (7.49–10.33)), followed by group 2 (6.82 95% CI (5.55–8.09)), and the lowest score difference was in group 1 (5.45 95% CI (3.39–7.52)). There was a significant difference amongst the three groups (p = 0.007).

Conclusions

Combination training is the most superior training for improving anal sphincter injury repair in a simulation model.