G E Chalouhi1, T Quibel2, C Lamourdedieu3, N J Hajal4, A Gueneuc4, N Benzina5, V Bernardi6, Y Ville4. 1. Service d'obstétrique et de médecine fœtale, université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, hôpital Necker-Enfants-Malades, AP-HP, 149, rue de Sèvres, 75015 Paris, France; SimECHOle, école de simulation pour l'enseignement et le perfectionnement en échographie gynécologique et obstétricale, Paris, France. Electronic address: gihad.chalouhi@gmail.com. 2. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, université Versailles-Saint-Quentin, centre hospitalier intercommunal de Poissy-Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 78300 Poissy, France; SimECHOle, école de simulation pour l'enseignement et le perfectionnement en échographie gynécologique et obstétricale, Paris, France. 3. Service d'obstétrique et de médecine fœtale, université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, hôpital Necker-Enfants-Malades, AP-HP, 149, rue de Sèvres, 75015 Paris, France. 4. Service d'obstétrique et de médecine fœtale, université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, hôpital Necker-Enfants-Malades, AP-HP, 149, rue de Sèvres, 75015 Paris, France; SimECHOle, école de simulation pour l'enseignement et le perfectionnement en échographie gynécologique et obstétricale, Paris, France. 5. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, groupe hospitalier Paris-Saint-Joseph, 75014 Paris, France. 6. Département de la femme et de l'enfant, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35122 Padova, Italie; SimECHOle, école de simulation pour l'enseignement et le perfectionnement en échographie gynécologique et obstétricale, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the obstetrical ultrasound simulator as an initiation tool for teaching obstetrical ultrasound scanning for beginners. METHODS: Twenty medical students with no experience in ultrasound scan (US) received a basic theoretical ultrasonography course on US principles and 2nd trimester biometrical measurements. The participants were then divided into 2 groups (A, B). Only group A received a practical 2nd trimester scan training session on the simulator where they were asked to determine fetal and placental position, and to take the 3 biometrical standardized measurements. Group B had the same training session but with a real ultrasound machine and a pregnant volunteer. The 2 groups were then asked to perform an US session on real patients (22 weeks) during which they had to do the same US study. The time needed to complete the whole scan was analyzed. The quality of the measurements was compared based on the previously published Objective Quality Criteria scoring. RESULTS: The mean total score was significantly (P=0.001) better for group A (14.3±1.4) compared to group B 10.3 (±2.75) for group A and B respectively. The time needed to accomplish the whole exam tended to be longer for group A (569±174s) compared to group A (479±104s) (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS: The simulator might be a useful initiation tool to obstetric ultrasound for those who never practiced. It might prove a time sparing procedure in the training process and allow trainees to reach a basic practice level before performing examinations on actual patients.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the obstetrical ultrasound simulator as an initiation tool for teaching obstetrical ultrasound scanning for beginners. METHODS: Twenty medical students with no experience in ultrasound scan (US) received a basic theoretical ultrasonography course on US principles and 2nd trimester biometrical measurements. The participants were then divided into 2 groups (A, B). Only group A received a practical 2nd trimester scan training session on the simulator where they were asked to determine fetal and placental position, and to take the 3 biometrical standardized measurements. Group B had the same training session but with a real ultrasound machine and a pregnant volunteer. The 2 groups were then asked to perform an US session on real patients (22 weeks) during which they had to do the same US study. The time needed to complete the whole scan was analyzed. The quality of the measurements was compared based on the previously published Objective Quality Criteria scoring. RESULTS: The mean total score was significantly (P=0.001) better for group A (14.3±1.4) compared to group B 10.3 (±2.75) for group A and B respectively. The time needed to accomplish the whole exam tended to be longer for group A (569±174s) compared to group A (479±104s) (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS: The simulator might be a useful initiation tool to obstetric ultrasound for those who never practiced. It might prove a time sparing procedure in the training process and allow trainees to reach a basic practice level before performing examinations on actual patients.