Medical Education Symposium

First Author Information

Lauren Siff, MD Assistant Professor Departments of OB/GYN and Surgery Divisions of Urogynecology and Urology

Additional Author(s) Information

Neil Mehta, MD Professor of Medicine and Assistant Dean, Education Informatics and Technology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of CWRU

Presentation Format

Oral

Type of Activity

Research

Original Presentation Date

2018

Date of Submission

April 2018

Abstract/Short Description

Abstract Purpose: One of the biggest challenges teaching urogynecologic surgery is developing a spatial understanding of the 3-Dimensional relationships of musculature, ligamentous supports and neurovasculature of the pelvic floor. Therefore, we created an innovative curriculum to improve trainee-preparedness for complex vaginal surgery. The aim of the study is to determine if an interactive holographic curriculum will improve self-perceived preparedness, surgical knowledge and learner-satisfaction compared to usual self-study. Methods: This is a prospective study of 18 OB/GYN residents. Participants prepared like they were “scrubbing into a case of uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF).” They then completed a self-perceived preparedness survey and knowledge-test of surgical anatomy and intraoperative complications. Each participant used the HoloLens curriculum independently and surveys were re-administered. Data were analyzed with paired non-parametric statistics. Results: 16/18 residents were females at a median PGY3 level (range 1-6). Self-perceived preparedness score ranged 7-35 with a median baseline score 22 for USLS and 20.5 for SSLF. These scores increased significantly for both procedures after using the modules: mean difference USLS 3.6 points p=.0001 and SSLF 3.7 points p=.0034. Knowledge scores also improved from baseline median 42.5% (range 25-85%) to 82.5% (55-100%): mean difference 35% p<.0001. Compared to usual preparation, 88% ranked the modules as “much” or “very much better” and 81% would be “likely” or “very likely” to use HoloLens to prepare for surgery. Discussion: This interactive holographic curriculum significantly improved self-perceived preparedness, surgical knowledge and trainee-satisfaction in urogynecologic surgery compared to usual self-study.

References

References 1. Botden SM, Jakimowicz JJ. What is going on in augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc. 2009 Aug;23(8):1693-700. 2. Moglia A, Ferrari V, Morelli L, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A. A Systematic Review of Virtual Reality Simulators for Robot-assisted Surgery. Eur Urol. 2016 Jun;69(6):1065-80. 3. Piromchai P, Avery A, Laopaiboon M, Kennedy G, O'Leary S. Virtual reality training for improving the skills needed for performing surgery of the ear, nose or throat. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 9;(9):CD010198. doi(9):CD010198. 4. Davis CR, Rosenfield LK. Looking at plastic surgery through Google Glass: part 1. Systematic review of Google Glass evidence and the first plastic surgical procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Mar;135(3):918-28. 5. Tepper OM, Rudy HL, Lefkowitz A, Weimer KA, Marks SM, Stern CS, et al. Mixed Reality with HoloLens: Where Virtual Reality Meets Augmented Reality in the Operating Room. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Nov;140(5):1066-70. 6. Sinkin JC, Rahman OF, Nahabedian MY. Google Glass in the Operating Room: The Plastic Surgeon's Perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jul;138(1):298-302. 7. Thomas RG, John NW, Delieu JM. Augmented reality for anatomical education. J Vis Commun Med. 2010 Mar;33(1):6-15. 8. Abernethy B, Poolton JM, Masters RS, Patil NG. Implications of an expertise model for surgical skills training. ANZ J Surg. 2008 Dec;78(12):1092-5. 9. Kugelmann D, Stratmann L, Nuhlen N, Bork F, Hoffmann S, Samarbarksh G, et al. An Augmented Reality magic mirror as additive teaching device for gross anatomy. Ann Anat. 2018 Jan;215:71-7. 10. Ma M, Fallavollita P, Seelbach I, Von Der Heide AM, Euler E, Waschke J, et al. Personalized augmented reality for anatomy education. Clin Anat. 2016 May;29(4):446-53. 11. Wang LL, Wu HH, Bilici N, Tenney-Soeiro R. Gunner Goggles: Implementing Augmented Reality into Medical Education. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;220:446-9. 12. Harrington CM, Kavanagh DO, Wright Ballester G, Wright Ballester A, Dicker P, Traynor O, et al. 360 degrees Operative Videos: A Randomised Cross-Over Study Evaluating Attentiveness and Information Retention. J Surg Educ. 2017 Nov 6. 13. Kamphuis C, Barsom E, Schijven M, Christoph N. Augmented reality in medical education? Perspect Med Educ. 2014 Sep;3(4):300-11. 14. Bienstock JL, Edgar L, McAlister R. Obstetrics and gynecology milestones. J Grad Med Educ. 2014 Mar;6(1 Suppl 1):126-8. 15. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Milestone Project [Internet].; 2013 [cited 1/17/2018]. Available from: https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Milestones/FemalePelvicMedicineandReconstructiveSurgeryMilestones.pdf?ver=2016-04-04-143644-683. 16. Shanedling J, Van Heest A, Rodriguez M, Putnam M, Agel J. Validation of an online assessment of orthopedic surgery residents' cognitive skills and preparedness for carpal tunnel release surgery. J Grad Med Educ. 2010 Sep;2(3):435-41.

Rights

© The Author(s)

Is Part Of

VCU Medical Education Symposium

Share

COinS