Premium
Development and validation of a septoplasty training model using 3‐dimensional printing technology
Author(s) -
AlReefi Mahmoud A.,
Nguyen Lily H.P.,
Mongeau Luc G.,
Haq Bassam ul,
Boyanapalli Siddharth,
Hafeez Nauman,
CegarraEscolano Francois,
Tewfik Marc A.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
international forum of allergy and rhinology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.503
H-Index - 46
eISSN - 2042-6984
pISSN - 2042-6976
DOI - 10.1002/alr.21887
Subject(s) - septoplasty , likert scale , medicine , enterotomy , perforation , medical physics , significant difference , simulation , physical therapy , surgery , computer science , nose , mechanical engineering , statistics , laparotomy , mathematics , engineering , punching
Background Providing alternative training modalities may improve trainees’ ability to perform septoplasty. Three‐dimensional printing has been shown to be a powerful tool in surgical training. The objectives of this study were to explain the development of our 3‐dimensional (3D) printed septoplasty training model, to assess its face and content validity, and to present evidence supporting its ability to distinguish between levels of surgical proficiency. Methods Imaging data of a patient with a nasal septal deviation was selected for printing. Printing materials reproducing the mechanical properties of human tissues were selected based on literature review and prototype testing. Eight expert rhinologists, 6 senior residents, and 6 junior residents performed endoscopic septoplasties on the model and completed a postsimulation survey. Performance metrics in quality (final product analysis), efficiency (time), and safety (eg, perforation length, nares damage) were recorded and analyzed in a study‐blind manner. Results The model was judged to be anatomically correct and the steps performed realistic, with scores of 4.05 ± 0.82 and 4.2 ± 1, respectively, on a 5‐point Likert scale. Ninety‐two percent of residents desired the simulator to be integrated into their teaching curriculum. There was a significant difference ( p < 0.05) between the expert, intermediate, and novice groups in time taken and nares cuts, whereas other performance metrics showed no significant difference. Conclusion To our knowledge, there are no other simulator training models for septoplasty. Our model incorporates 2 different materials mixed into the 3 relevant consistencies necessary to simulate septoplasty. Our findings provide evidence supporting the validity of the model.