Mithun Kailavasan1, Christopher Berridge2, Gokul Kandaswamy3, Bhavan Rai4, Beverley Wilkinson5, Sunjay Jain6, Chandra Shekhar Biyani7, Basavaraj Gowda8. 1. University Hospital Coventry & Warwickshire, Coventry, UK. 2. Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK. 3. Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK. 4. Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK. 5. Sheffield Teaching Hospital, Sheffield, UK. 6. Department of Urology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. 7. Department of Urology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. shekharbiyani@hotmail.com. 8. James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the content validity of a low-cost bench-top model ("Raj Model") for the training of laparoscopic port insertion at the Urology Simulation Bootcamp course (USBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A low-cost abdominal wall model of 40 × 40 cm was created to simulate laparoscopic port placement. The model was made using different synthetic materials to represent layers (skin-vinyl sheet, subcutaneous fat-10 mm soft foam, anterior rectus sheath and muscle-floor mat, posterior rectus sheath-masking wall tape, peritoneum-sellotape). Each model was used by up to 3 trainees to practise laparoscopic port placement. The model was assessed for content validity by trainees and experts using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULT: In total, 88 trainees and 6 experts participated in the study. For all aspects of the synthetic abdominal wall, good (4) or very good (5) scores ranged from 52.7-69.2%, whereas very poor (1) rating ranged from 0 to 4.3%. There was no significant difference in responses for the content validity of the model between trainees and experts. There was a high intraclass correlation amongst responses from trainees (0.89) and experts (0.79). Approximately 76.3% of trainees and experts felt that the model is suitable for training. CONCLUSION: This is the first validation study of a low-cost abdominal wall model for teaching laparoscopic port placement for trainees. Our study demonstrates that this synthetic model has high content validity and is useful for surgical training.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the content validity of a low-cost bench-top model ("Raj Model") for the training of laparoscopic port insertion at the Urology Simulation Bootcamp course (USBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A low-cost abdominal wall model of 40 × 40 cm was created to simulate laparoscopic port placement. The model was made using different synthetic materials to represent layers (skin-vinyl sheet, subcutaneous fat-10 mm soft foam, anterior rectus sheath and muscle-floor mat, posterior rectus sheath-masking wall tape, peritoneum-sellotape). Each model was used by up to 3 trainees to practise laparoscopic port placement. The model was assessed for content validity by trainees and experts using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULT: In total, 88 trainees and 6 experts participated in the study. For all aspects of the synthetic abdominal wall, good (4) or very good (5) scores ranged from 52.7-69.2%, whereas very poor (1) rating ranged from 0 to 4.3%. There was no significant difference in responses for the content validity of the model between trainees and experts. There was a high intraclass correlation amongst responses from trainees (0.89) and experts (0.79). Approximately 76.3% of trainees and experts felt that the model is suitable for training. CONCLUSION: This is the first validation study of a low-cost abdominal wall model for teaching laparoscopic port placement for trainees. Our study demonstrates that this synthetic model has high content validity and is useful for surgical training.
Authors: Guilherme Pena; Meryl Altree; John Field; David Sainsbury; Wendy Babidge; Peter Hewett; Guy Maddern Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: M Young; M Kailavasan; J Taylor; P Cornford; A Colquhoun; M Rochester; V Hanchanale; B Somani; G Nabi; M Garthwaite; R Gowda; F Reeves; B Rai; R Doherty; A Gkentzis; G Athanasiadis; J Patterson; B Wilkinson; A Myatt; C S Biyani; S Jain Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Leanne M Sutherland; Philippa F Middleton; Adrian Anthony; Jeffrey Hamdorf; Patrick Cregan; David Scott; Guy J Maddern Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 12.969