| Literature DB >> 34458874 |
Kenichiro Takahashi1, Chiharu Tanaka2, Ryosuke Numaguchi3, Yoshinori Kuroda4, Hiroko Nemoto5, Kunihiko Yoshino6, Mika Noda7, Yoshinori Inoue8, Kumiko Wada9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic presents in-person exposure risk during surgical education. We aimed to validate the feasibility of fully remote faculty-supervised surgical training sessions focused on coronary artery bypass grafting using a synthetic simulator and online videochat software.Entities:
Keywords: CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; COVID-19; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; JSCVS, The Japanese Society for Cardiovascular Surgery; OFFJT, off-the-job training; U-40, Committee of the Japanese Society for Cardiovascular Surgery Under Forty; coronary artery bypass grafting; objective structured assessment of technical skills; off-the-job training; remote surgical education; simulation-based training
Year: 2021 PMID: 34458874 PMCID: PMC8379004 DOI: 10.1016/j.xjon.2021.08.019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JTCVS Open ISSN: 2666-2736
Figure 1Participants in the remote simulator-based training session. This small-group teaching session involved 3 trainees, 1 faculty member, and 1 host via online videochat software. Trainees performed coronary anastomosis using a synthetic simulator and faculty members gave a formative feedback. This 2-hour remote training session was held 24 times, involving a cumulative total of 70 trainees and 24 faculty members in this study.
Figure 2A, The instruments for the remote session. Participants received these instruments shipped to their home. YOUCAN (EBM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) is a commercially available high-fidelity silicone vascular model imitating a coronary artery and an internal thoracic artery graft. Anasthon A-1 Kit (EBM Corporation) is a plastic-made foldable base of YOUCAN with a lighting system. Prolene (Ethicon Inc; Johnson & Johnson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) is a monofilament nonabsorbable polypropylene suture. B, Completed form of Anasthon A-1 Kit in which YOUCAN is situated. Anasthon A-1 Kit was intended to use for not only fixation of YOUCAN on its base but also recording participants' anastomoses with smartphones placed on the clear roof. C, Setting of a trainee participating in the remote session. Trainees need to log in to the session on both their own personal computer and smartphone because they need to watch the anastomosis of others closely on the personal computer screen while their smartphone captures their anastomosis.
Components of the performance rating scores
| Evaluation points | Score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Good | Average | Poor | Error | |
| 1. Coronary artery incision (straightness, centering, length appropriate) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2. Anastomosing skill of heel portion (bite/spacing appropriate, needle/suture management) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 3. Anastomosing skill of near side portion (bite/spacing appropriate, needle/suture management) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 4. Anastomosing skill of toe portion (bite/spacing appropriate, needle/suture management) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 5. Anastomosing skill of far side portion (bite/spacing appropriate, needle/suture management) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 6. Overall instrument handling technique (use of forceps and needle holder, needle transfer) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 7. Knot tying skill (adequate tension, finger, and hand follow for knots) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 8. External appearance of completed anastomosis (shape affirmation, dog ear deformity) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 9. Internal appearance of completed anastomosis (patency affirmation, absence of stenosis) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 10. Anastomosing time (5: ∼8 min, 4: ∼10 min, 3: ∼13 min, 2: ∼16 min, 1: ∼16 min) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Scores: 5 = excellent, able to accomplish goal without hesitation, showing excellent flow; 4 = good, able to accomplish goal deliberately, with minimal hesitation, showing good flow; 3 = average, able to accomplish goal with hesitation, discontinuous flow; 2 = poor, able to partially accomplish goal with hesitation; and 1 = error, unable to accomplish goal, marked hesitation. These are adapted from the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill.,,,
Questionnaire survey to the participants
| Statement | Agree | Neither | Disagree |
|---|---|---|---|
| Questionnaire to the trainees (33 respondents) | |||
| Entering application form and receiving instruments were easy | 27 (82) | 6 (18) | 0 |
| Participating in the session via Zoom | 32 (97) | 1 (3) | 0 |
| Performing an anastomosis with YOUCAN | 23 (70) | 10 (30) | 0 |
| Combination of prior free practice and real-time demonstration was beneficial | 31 (94) | 0 | 2 (6) |
| The faculty's instruction was educational | 32 (97) | 1 (3) | 0 |
| Performance rating scores were beneficial to understand feedback | 25 (76) | 8 (24) | 0 |
| Time allocation during the session was appropriate | 28 (85) | 1 (3) | 4 (12) |
| This remote training session was equivalent to conventional onsite seminars | 26 (79) | 2 (6) | 5 (15) |
| This remote training session was effective to improve surgical skill | 33 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Questionnaire to the faculties (20 respondents) | |||
| Entering application form and receiving instruments were easy | 17 (85) | 3 (15) | 0 |
| Participating in the session via Zoom | 17 (85) | 3 (15) | 0 |
| Performing an anastomosis with YOUCAN | 16 (80) | 3 (15) | 1 (5) |
| Combination of prior free practice and real-time demonstration was beneficial | 19 (95) | 0 | 1 (5) |
| The host's operation was comprehensible during the session | 20 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Components of performance rating scores were appropriate | 10 (50) | 9 (45) | 1 (5) |
| Time allocation during the session was appropriate | 18 (90) | 2 (10) | 0 |
| This remote training session was equivalent to conventional on-site seminars | 19 (95) | 0 | 1 (5) |
| This remote training session was effective to improve surgical skill | 20 (100) | 0 | 0 |
Values are presented as n (%).
Zoom Video Communications Inc, San Jose, Calif.
EBM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
Figure 3Four representative example images of the Zoom (Zoom Video Communications Inc, San Jose, Calif) screen displaying completed anastomoses during the remote session. Each anastomosis was performed by a different participant. A, High-scored anastomosis exhibits an ideal external shape with adequate bulge. B, Low-scored anastomosis exhibits an unfavorable external shape with hollow deformity. C, High-scored internal appearance shows appropriate bites and spacings without intimal damage. D, Low-scored internal appearance shows irregular bites and spacings with intimal injuries.
Mean performance rating scores comparing the initial and last session among 13 trainees who participated repeatedly
| Evaluation points | Initial score | Last score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coronary artery incision | 4.3 ± 0.6 | 4.5 ± 0.7 | .34 |
| 2. Anastomosing skill of heel portion | 3.7 ± 0.8 | 4.1 ± 0.9 | .23 |
| 3. Anastomosing skill of near side portion | 3.4 ± 1.0 | 4.1 ± 0.9 | .02 |
| 4. Anastomosing skill of toe portion | 3.3 ± 0.9 | 3.5 ± 1.0 | .34 |
| 5. Anastomosing skill of far side portion | 3.3 ± 0.8 | 3.9 ± 0.8 | .03 |
| 6. Overall instrument handling technique | 4.0 ± 0.8 | 4.5 ± 0.8 | .44 |
| 7. Knot tying skill | 4.2 ± 0.8 | 4.3 ± 0.7 | .83 |
| 8. External appearance of completed anastomosis | 3.5 ± 0.8 | 4.2 ± 0.7 | .01 |
| 9. Internal appearance of completed anastomosis | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 4.0 ± 0.9 | .004 |
| 10. Anastomosing time | 3.4 ± 0.9 | 3.2 ± 1.0 | .50 |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Performance rating scores were compared for the initial session versus the last session using paired t test.
Figure 4The performance rating score comparison between the initial and last session of the trainees who participated repeatedly (n = 13). Each line represents the mean score of each component of the 13 trainees' performance rating scores. A significant improvement was observed in the components of anastomosing skill of near side portion (3.4 ± 1.0 vs 4.1 ± 0.9; P = .02), far side portion (3.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.9 ± 0.8; P = .03), external appearance of anastomosis (3.5 ± 0.8 vs 4.2 ± 0.7; P = .01), and internal appearance of anastomosis (2.8 ± 0.9 vs 4.0 ± 0.9; P = .004), whereas most other components showed nonsignificant trend toward higher scores in the last session.
Figure 5Graphical summary of the study demonstrating that our newly developed training method achieved completely remote faculty-supervised surgical skill acquisition using synthetic simulators and online videochat software. The results of this study have important implications on surgical education during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.