Cargando…

A randomized study on the value of self‐directed versus traditional mentor‐led microsurgical training

OBJECTIVE: Analyze efficacy of self‐directed resident microvascular training versus a mentor‐led course. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, single‐blinded cohort study. SETTING: Academic tertiary care center. METHODS: Sixteen resident and fellow participants were randomized into two groups stratified by trai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Powell, Michael S., Gardner, James Reed, Davis, Kyle P., Dunlap, Quinn, King, Deanne, Vural, Emre, Moreno, Mauricio Alejandro, Sunde, Jumin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9948580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36846417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lio2.999
_version_ 1784892811604131840
author Powell, Michael S.
Gardner, James Reed
Davis, Kyle P.
Dunlap, Quinn
King, Deanne
Vural, Emre
Moreno, Mauricio Alejandro
Sunde, Jumin
author_facet Powell, Michael S.
Gardner, James Reed
Davis, Kyle P.
Dunlap, Quinn
King, Deanne
Vural, Emre
Moreno, Mauricio Alejandro
Sunde, Jumin
author_sort Powell, Michael S.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Analyze efficacy of self‐directed resident microvascular training versus a mentor‐led course. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, single‐blinded cohort study. SETTING: Academic tertiary care center. METHODS: Sixteen resident and fellow participants were randomized into two groups stratified by training year. Group A completed a self‐directed microvascular course with instructional videos and self‐directed lab sessions. Group B completed a traditional mentor‐led microvascular course. Both groups spent equal time in the lab. Video recorded pre and post‐course microsurgical skill assessments were performed to assess the efficacy of the training. Two microsurgeons, blinded to participant identity, evaluated the recordings and inspected each microvascular anastomosis (MVA). Videos were scored using an objective‐structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS), a global rating scale (GRS), and quality of anastomosis scoring (QoA). RESULTS: The pre‐course assessment identified that the groups were well matched with only “Economy of Motion” on the GRS favoring the mentor led group (p = .02). This difference remained significant on the post assessment (p = .02) Both groups significantly improved in OSATS and GRS scoring (p < .05). There was no significant difference in OSATS improvement between the two groups (p = .36) or improvement in MVA quality between groups (p > .99). Time to completion of MVA significantly improved overall by a mean of 8 min and 9 s (p = .005) with no significant difference between post training times to complete (p = .63). CONCLUSION: Different microsurgical training models have previously been validated as effective methods for improved MVA performance. Our findings indicate that a self‐directed microsurgical training model is an effective alternative to a traditional mentor driven models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9948580
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99485802023-02-24 A randomized study on the value of self‐directed versus traditional mentor‐led microsurgical training Powell, Michael S. Gardner, James Reed Davis, Kyle P. Dunlap, Quinn King, Deanne Vural, Emre Moreno, Mauricio Alejandro Sunde, Jumin Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Comprehensive (General) Otolaryngology OBJECTIVE: Analyze efficacy of self‐directed resident microvascular training versus a mentor‐led course. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, single‐blinded cohort study. SETTING: Academic tertiary care center. METHODS: Sixteen resident and fellow participants were randomized into two groups stratified by training year. Group A completed a self‐directed microvascular course with instructional videos and self‐directed lab sessions. Group B completed a traditional mentor‐led microvascular course. Both groups spent equal time in the lab. Video recorded pre and post‐course microsurgical skill assessments were performed to assess the efficacy of the training. Two microsurgeons, blinded to participant identity, evaluated the recordings and inspected each microvascular anastomosis (MVA). Videos were scored using an objective‐structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS), a global rating scale (GRS), and quality of anastomosis scoring (QoA). RESULTS: The pre‐course assessment identified that the groups were well matched with only “Economy of Motion” on the GRS favoring the mentor led group (p = .02). This difference remained significant on the post assessment (p = .02) Both groups significantly improved in OSATS and GRS scoring (p < .05). There was no significant difference in OSATS improvement between the two groups (p = .36) or improvement in MVA quality between groups (p > .99). Time to completion of MVA significantly improved overall by a mean of 8 min and 9 s (p = .005) with no significant difference between post training times to complete (p = .63). CONCLUSION: Different microsurgical training models have previously been validated as effective methods for improved MVA performance. Our findings indicate that a self‐directed microsurgical training model is an effective alternative to a traditional mentor driven models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2023-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9948580/ /pubmed/36846417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lio2.999 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Triological Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Comprehensive (General) Otolaryngology
Powell, Michael S.
Gardner, James Reed
Davis, Kyle P.
Dunlap, Quinn
King, Deanne
Vural, Emre
Moreno, Mauricio Alejandro
Sunde, Jumin
A randomized study on the value of self‐directed versus traditional mentor‐led microsurgical training
title A randomized study on the value of self‐directed versus traditional mentor‐led microsurgical training
title_full A randomized study on the value of self‐directed versus traditional mentor‐led microsurgical training
title_fullStr A randomized study on the value of self‐directed versus traditional mentor‐led microsurgical training
title_full_unstemmed A randomized study on the value of self‐directed versus traditional mentor‐led microsurgical training
title_short A randomized study on the value of self‐directed versus traditional mentor‐led microsurgical training
title_sort randomized study on the value of self‐directed versus traditional mentor‐led microsurgical training
topic Comprehensive (General) Otolaryngology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9948580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36846417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lio2.999
work_keys_str_mv AT powellmichaels arandomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT gardnerjamesreed arandomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT daviskylep arandomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT dunlapquinn arandomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT kingdeanne arandomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT vuralemre arandomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT morenomauricioalejandro arandomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT sundejumin arandomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT powellmichaels randomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT gardnerjamesreed randomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT daviskylep randomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT dunlapquinn randomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT kingdeanne randomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT vuralemre randomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT morenomauricioalejandro randomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining
AT sundejumin randomizedstudyonthevalueofselfdirectedversustraditionalmentorledmicrosurgicaltraining