Back

Development and validation of a realistic type III esophageal atresia simulator for the training of pediatric surgeons

Arredondo Montero, J.; Perez-Riveros, B. P.; Bueso Asfura, O. E.; Martin-Calvo, N.; Pueyo, F. J.; Lopez de Aguileta Castano, N.

2024-01-12 surgery
10.1101/2024.01.11.24301151 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe technical complexity and limited casuistry of neonatal surgical pathology limit the possibilities of developing the necessary technical competencies by specialists in training. Esophageal atresia constitutes the paradigm of this problem. The use of 3D models for training is a promising line of research, although the literature is limited. MethodsWe conceptualized, designed, and produced an anatomically realistic model for the open correction of type III oesophageal atresia. We validated it with two groups of participants (experts and non-experts) through face, construct, and content validity questionnaires. ResultsThe model was validated by 9 experts and 9 non-experts. The mean procedure time for the experts and non-experts groups was 34.0 and 38.4 minutes respectively. Two non-experts did not complete the procedure at the designed time (45 minutes). Regarding the face validity questionnaire, the mean rating of the model was 3.2 out of 4. Regarding the construct validity, we found statistically significant differences between groups for the equidistance between sutures, 100% correct in the expert group vs. 42.9% correct in the non-expert group (p=0.02), and for the item "Confirms that tracheoesophageal fistula closure is watertight before continuing the procedure", correctly assessed by 66.7% of the experts vs. by 11.1% of non-experts (p=0.05). Concerning content validity, the mean score was 3.3 out of 4 for the experts and 3.3 out of 4 for the non-experts (p=0.32). ConclusionsThe present model is a cost-effective, simple to produce, and validated option for the training of open correction of type III oesophageal atresia. Future studies with larger sample sizes and blinded validators are needed before drawing definitive conclusions. FundingNone

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.