Use of pelvic model-based simulation for sacrospinous ligament fixation education in novice learners: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial
Introduction and hypothesis We hypothesize that there will be improvement in a novice learners’ confidence and skill level with sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) following a pelvic model-based simulation. Methods We performed a single-blinded randomized controlled trial with obstetrics and gynec...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International Urogynecology Journal 2021-04, Vol.32 (4), p.897-903 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction and hypothesis
We hypothesize that there will be improvement in a novice learners’ confidence and skill level with sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) following a pelvic model-based simulation.
Methods
We performed a single-blinded randomized controlled trial with obstetrics and gynecology residents who were novices at SSLF. The residents were randomly assigned to two groups. The control group received a lecture on the SSLF procedure and anatomy, whereas the intervention group received the same lecture in addition to a pelvic model-based simulation session taught by urogynecologists. The residents’ knowledge of SSLF anatomy and confidence level with the procedure were measured via assessments administered before and after the educational interventions. Their technical skills were objectively assessed by one of two fellowship-trained urogynecologists who were blinded to their group allocation.
Results
A total of 28 residents were recruited with 14 residents in each group and equal distribution of junior and senior trainees. None of the residents had previously performed the SSLF procedure. There was no difference in anatomical knowledge between the two groups. The intervention group showed a greater increase in their average confidence score compared with the control group: 4.0 ± 1.4 (95% CI 3.1–4.8) versus 2.6 ± 1.6 (95% CI 1.7–3.4) respectively, with
p
= 0.02. The intervention group also showed better objective scores in specific technical skills, such as instrument handling (
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0937-3462 1433-3023 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00192-020-04445-8 |