Developing and validating a simple and cost-effective strabismus surgery simulator

Temitope Adebayo, Michael Abendroth, Gaytri Gupta Elera, Allen Kunselman, Elizabeth Sinz, Amanda Ely, Amr Elkamshoushy, Ajay Soni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To demonstrate that a nonbiologic strabismus surgery simulator is not inferior to a biologic wet lab for teaching the key steps of strabismus surgery. Methods: A total of 41 medical students were randomly assigned to one of two groups: biologic wet lab or nonbiologic simulator. The students trained according to the group's protocol then participated in a recorded final assessment using a realistic strabismus surgery model. Two independent reviewers, masked to training method, graded the video recordings using three scoring systems: the International Council of Ophthalmology Approved-Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubric for Strabismus Surgery (ICO-OSCAR), the Global Rating Scale of Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), and the Alphabetic Summary Scale (ASS). Results: The primary endpoint, total ICO-OSCAR score, was 36.7 ± 2.2 for the wet lab group and 36.0 ± 2.7 for the nonbiologic group (difference in means, −0.7; one-sided 95% CI, −2.0, ∞). The lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in mean scores was −2.0, which was greater than the a priori noninferiority margin of −5.0 points. The secondary outcome measure, mean total OSATS score and ASS score, revealed no statistical significant differences between training methods (P = 0.73 and P = 0.44, resp.). Conclusions: The simple, nonbiologic strabismus surgery simulator is not inferior to the biologic wet lab with respect to total ICO-OSCAR score. It is a portable, inexpensive, and effective training tool for novice surgeons.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)85-88.e2
JournalJournal of AAPOS
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2018

Fingerprint

Strabismus
Costs and Cost Analysis
Ophthalmology
Video Recording
Medical Students
Teaching
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Confidence Intervals
Students

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Adebayo, Temitope ; Abendroth, Michael ; Elera, Gaytri Gupta ; Kunselman, Allen ; Sinz, Elizabeth ; Ely, Amanda ; Elkamshoushy, Amr ; Soni, Ajay. / Developing and validating a simple and cost-effective strabismus surgery simulator. In: Journal of AAPOS. 2018 ; Vol. 22, No. 2. pp. 85-88.e2.
@article{39eb71b46dd04059a4c594ebe8b64939,
title = "Developing and validating a simple and cost-effective strabismus surgery simulator",
abstract = "Purpose: To demonstrate that a nonbiologic strabismus surgery simulator is not inferior to a biologic wet lab for teaching the key steps of strabismus surgery. Methods: A total of 41 medical students were randomly assigned to one of two groups: biologic wet lab or nonbiologic simulator. The students trained according to the group's protocol then participated in a recorded final assessment using a realistic strabismus surgery model. Two independent reviewers, masked to training method, graded the video recordings using three scoring systems: the International Council of Ophthalmology Approved-Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubric for Strabismus Surgery (ICO-OSCAR), the Global Rating Scale of Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), and the Alphabetic Summary Scale (ASS). Results: The primary endpoint, total ICO-OSCAR score, was 36.7 ± 2.2 for the wet lab group and 36.0 ± 2.7 for the nonbiologic group (difference in means, −0.7; one-sided 95{\%} CI, −2.0, ∞). The lower bound of the one-sided 95{\%} confidence interval for the difference in mean scores was −2.0, which was greater than the a priori noninferiority margin of −5.0 points. The secondary outcome measure, mean total OSATS score and ASS score, revealed no statistical significant differences between training methods (P = 0.73 and P = 0.44, resp.). Conclusions: The simple, nonbiologic strabismus surgery simulator is not inferior to the biologic wet lab with respect to total ICO-OSCAR score. It is a portable, inexpensive, and effective training tool for novice surgeons.",
author = "Temitope Adebayo and Michael Abendroth and Elera, {Gaytri Gupta} and Allen Kunselman and Elizabeth Sinz and Amanda Ely and Amr Elkamshoushy and Ajay Soni",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.11.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "85--88.e2",
journal = "Journal of AAPOS",
issn = "1091-8531",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Developing and validating a simple and cost-effective strabismus surgery simulator. / Adebayo, Temitope; Abendroth, Michael; Elera, Gaytri Gupta; Kunselman, Allen; Sinz, Elizabeth; Ely, Amanda; Elkamshoushy, Amr; Soni, Ajay.

In: Journal of AAPOS, Vol. 22, No. 2, 01.04.2018, p. 85-88.e2.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Developing and validating a simple and cost-effective strabismus surgery simulator

AU - Adebayo, Temitope

AU - Abendroth, Michael

AU - Elera, Gaytri Gupta

AU - Kunselman, Allen

AU - Sinz, Elizabeth

AU - Ely, Amanda

AU - Elkamshoushy, Amr

AU - Soni, Ajay

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - Purpose: To demonstrate that a nonbiologic strabismus surgery simulator is not inferior to a biologic wet lab for teaching the key steps of strabismus surgery. Methods: A total of 41 medical students were randomly assigned to one of two groups: biologic wet lab or nonbiologic simulator. The students trained according to the group's protocol then participated in a recorded final assessment using a realistic strabismus surgery model. Two independent reviewers, masked to training method, graded the video recordings using three scoring systems: the International Council of Ophthalmology Approved-Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubric for Strabismus Surgery (ICO-OSCAR), the Global Rating Scale of Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), and the Alphabetic Summary Scale (ASS). Results: The primary endpoint, total ICO-OSCAR score, was 36.7 ± 2.2 for the wet lab group and 36.0 ± 2.7 for the nonbiologic group (difference in means, −0.7; one-sided 95% CI, −2.0, ∞). The lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in mean scores was −2.0, which was greater than the a priori noninferiority margin of −5.0 points. The secondary outcome measure, mean total OSATS score and ASS score, revealed no statistical significant differences between training methods (P = 0.73 and P = 0.44, resp.). Conclusions: The simple, nonbiologic strabismus surgery simulator is not inferior to the biologic wet lab with respect to total ICO-OSCAR score. It is a portable, inexpensive, and effective training tool for novice surgeons.

AB - Purpose: To demonstrate that a nonbiologic strabismus surgery simulator is not inferior to a biologic wet lab for teaching the key steps of strabismus surgery. Methods: A total of 41 medical students were randomly assigned to one of two groups: biologic wet lab or nonbiologic simulator. The students trained according to the group's protocol then participated in a recorded final assessment using a realistic strabismus surgery model. Two independent reviewers, masked to training method, graded the video recordings using three scoring systems: the International Council of Ophthalmology Approved-Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubric for Strabismus Surgery (ICO-OSCAR), the Global Rating Scale of Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), and the Alphabetic Summary Scale (ASS). Results: The primary endpoint, total ICO-OSCAR score, was 36.7 ± 2.2 for the wet lab group and 36.0 ± 2.7 for the nonbiologic group (difference in means, −0.7; one-sided 95% CI, −2.0, ∞). The lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in mean scores was −2.0, which was greater than the a priori noninferiority margin of −5.0 points. The secondary outcome measure, mean total OSATS score and ASS score, revealed no statistical significant differences between training methods (P = 0.73 and P = 0.44, resp.). Conclusions: The simple, nonbiologic strabismus surgery simulator is not inferior to the biologic wet lab with respect to total ICO-OSCAR score. It is a portable, inexpensive, and effective training tool for novice surgeons.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044527076&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044527076&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.11.006

DO - 10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.11.006

M3 - Article

C2 - 29535054

AN - SCOPUS:85044527076

VL - 22

SP - 85-88.e2

JO - Journal of AAPOS

JF - Journal of AAPOS

SN - 1091-8531

IS - 2

ER -