ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Genitoplasty is becoming more and more common, and it is important to improve the accuracy of the procedure and simplify the procedure. This experiment explores the feasibility of using augmented reality (AR) technology combined with PSI titanium plates for navigational assistance in genioplasty performed on models, aiming to study the precision of such surgical interventions. METHODS: Twelve genioplasty procedures were designed and implemented on 3D-printed resin mandibular models by the same surgeon using three different approaches: AR+3DT group (AR+PSI) , 3DT group (patient-specific titanium plate) , and a traditional free-hand group(FH group). Postoperative models were assessed using CBCT to evaluate surgical accuracy. RESULTS: In terms of osteotomy accuracy, the AR group demonstrated a surgical error of 0.9440±0.5441 mm, significantly lower than the control group, which had an error of 1.685±0.8907 mm (P < 0.0001). In experiments positioning the distal segment of the chin, the overall centroid shift in the AR group was 0.3661±0.1360 mm, significantly less than the 2.304±0.9629 mm in the 3DT group and 1.562±0.9799 mm in the FH group (P < 0.0001). Regarding angular error, the AR+3DT group showed 2.825±1.373°, significantly <8.283±3.640° in the 3DT group and 7.234±5.241° in the FH group. CONCLUSION: AR navigation technology combined with PSI titanium plates demonstrates higher surgical accuracy compared to traditional methods and shows feasibility for use. Further validation through clinical trials is necessary.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Both simulation-based training and video-based training serve as educational adjuncts for learning TEE among medical students. In the present study, we hypothesized that simulation-based training would better enhance the performance of medical students in the interpretation of 20 cross-sectional views compared to video-based training. METHODS: A total of 120 4th-year undergraduate medical students were enrolled in the present study. The study began with a pre-test of all the participants, followed by a 90-min theoretical lecture and a post-test. Subsequently, the participants were randomly divided into the video-based group (Group V) and simulation-based group (Group S). Next, Group V received 60 min of TEE video learning, while Group S received 60 min of TEE simulator training. After the respective training, both the groups undertook the retention-test 1 and retention-test 2, 1 week and 1 month later, respectively. The performance for each test was evaluated by five views, which were selected randomly and, respectively, from a set of 20 cross-sectional views. The primary outcome was the performance of the retention-test 1. Secondary outcomes included: (1) comparison the performances of the pre-test, post-test, and retention-test 2 between two groups; (2) comparison the performances of pre-test and post-test in the same group; (3) comparison the performances of retention-test 1, and retention-test 2 in the same group. RESULTS: Better performances were observed in Group S in both retention-test 1 (Group V: 63.2 [52.6, 77.6] vs. Group S: 89.5 [68.4, 100.0], P < 0.001) and retention-test 2 (Group V: 58.0 [48.0, 72.0] vs. Group S: 74.0 [64.0, 80.0], P < 0.001) compared to Group V. No statistically significant differences were observed in the performances of pre-test (Group V: 8.3 [4.2, 12.5] vs. Group S: 8.3 [4.2, 12.5], P = 0.825) or post-test (Group V: 46.2 [38.5, 57.7] vs. Group S: 44.2 [38.5, 56.7], P = 0.694) between the two groups. The improvement had been observed in the post-test, compared with pre-test in the same group, respectively (Group V in post-test: 46.2 [38.5, 57.7] vs. Group V in pre-test: 8.3 [4.2, 12.5], P < 0.001; Group S in post-test: 44.2 [38.5, 56.7] vs. Group S in pre-test: 8.3 [4.2, 12.5], P < 0.001). However, the performance in retention-test 2 was significantly reduced, compared with retention-test 1 in the same group, respectively (Group V in retention-test 2: 58.0 [48.0, 72.0] vs. Group V in retention-test 1: 63.2 [52.6, 77.6] P = 0.005; Group S in retention-test 2: 74.0 [64.0, 80.0] vs. Group S in retention-test 1: 89.5 [68.4, 100.0], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Following a 90-min theoretical lecture, simulation-based training better enhanced the performance of medical students in the interpretation and short-term retention of 20 cross-sectional views compared to video-based training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.chictr.org.cn ( ChiCTR2000033519 , 3/June/2020).
Subject(s)
Simulation Training , Students, Medical , Clinical Competence , Cross-Sectional Studies , Echocardiography , Educational Measurement , Humans , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We assessed whether a postoperative bilateral, ultrasound-guided, posterior transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block could reduce 24 h rescue tramadol requirement compared with placebo in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic surgery following the diagnosis of colorectal cancer were included in this study and randomized into Group and Group Control. The patients received a postoperative bilateral, ultrasound-guided, posterior TAP block in either 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine (Group TAP) per side or an equivalent volume of normal saline (Group Control). The primary outcome was the cumulative consumption of rescue tramadol within 24 h after the surgery. Secondary endpoints included (1) resting and movement numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h; (2) incidences of related side effects; (3) time to the first request for rescue tramadol; (4) patient satisfaction regarding postoperative analgesia; (5) time to restoration of intestinal function; (6) time to mobilization; and (7) the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 92 patients were randomized, and 82 patients completed the analysis. The total rescue tramadol requirement (median [interquartile range]) within the first 24 h was lower in Group TAP (0 [0, 87.5] mg) than in Group Control (100 [100, 200] mg), P < 0.001. The posterior TAP block reduced resting and movement NRS pain scores at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery (all P < 0.001) but showed similar scores at 48 h or 72 h. A higher level of satisfaction with postoperative analgesia was observed in Group TAP on day 1 (P = 0.002), which was similar on days 2 (P = 0.702) and 3 (P = 0.551), compared with the Group Control. A few incidences of opioid-related side effects (P < 0.001) and a lower percentage of patients requiring rescue tramadol analgesia within 24 h (P < 0.001) were observed in Group TAP. The time to the first request for rescue analgesia was prolonged, and the time to mobilization and flatus was reduced with a shorter hospital stay in Group TAP as compared with Group Control. CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative bilateral, ultrasound-guided, posterior TAP block resulted in better pain management and a faster recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, without adverse effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn ( ChiCTR-IPR-17012650 ; Sep 12, 2017).