ArticleScientific reports2021
Validation of a high-fidelity training model for fetoscopic spina bifida surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fetoscopic Robotic Open Spina Bifida Treatment (FROST): A Preclinical Feasibility and Learning Curve Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
- 3D vs. 2D simulated fetoscopy for spina bifida repair: a quantitative motion analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Open fetal surgery for spina bifida (SB) is safe and effective yet invasive. The growing interest in fetoscopic SB repair (fSB-repair) prompts the need for appropriate training. We aimed to develop and validate a high-fidelity training model for fSB-repair. fSB-repair was simulated in the abdominal cavity and on the stomach of adult rabbits. Laparoscopic fetal surgeons served either as novices (n = 2) or experts (n = 3) based on their experience. Technical performance was evaluated using competency Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis and the group splitting method. Main outcome measure for CUSUM competency was a composite binary outcome for surgical success, i.e. watertight repair, operation time ≤ 180 min and Objective-Structured-Assessment-of-Technical-Skills (OSATS) score ≥ 18/25. Construct validity was first confirmed since competency levels of novices and experts during their six first cases using both methods were significantly different. Criterion validity was also established as 33 consecutive procedures were needed for novices to reach competency using learning curve CUSUM, which is a number comparable to that of clinical fSB-repair. Finally, we surveyed expert fetal surgeons worldwide to assess face and content validity. Respondents (26/49; 53%) confirmed it with ≥ 71% of scores for overall realism ≥ 4/7 and usefulness ≥ 3/5. We propose to use our high-fidelity model to determine and shorten the learning curve of laparoscopic fetal surgeons and retain operative skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.