ArticleBMC surgery2023
Two cleft palate simulators of Furlow double-opposing Z- palatoplasty: a comparative study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of the porcine tongue for palatoplasty simulation compared to 3D-printed simulators and their surgical education role. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 18 senior cleft surgeons participated in a palatoplasty simulation-based workshop conducted using porcine tongue simulators and 3D-printed simulators. This workshop consisted of a didactic session followed by a hands-on simulation session. Each participant independently used both simulators to perform Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty, which was assessed and scored by senior cleft surgeons using a scoring system including organizational flexibility and ductility, anatomical design simulation, proper incision, proper suturing, and convenience of operation. A paired t test was used for data statistical analysis and a P value < 0.05 was regarded as a statistically significant difference.
resultsAll senior cleft surgeons strongly agreed that the simulation-based workshop was a valuable learning experience, and both simulators were useful and easy to manipulate (P = 1.00). The results of this comparative study showed that a porcine tongue palatoplasty simulator had an effectively significant difference in terms of organizational flexibility and ductility (P = 0.04), and suturing was better than the 3D-printed palatoplasty simulator (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the simulators regarding anatomical design simulation (P = 0.76) and incision simulation (P = 0.65).
conclusionBoth porcine tongue simulator and 3D-printed simulator have their unique strengths in surgical education for palatoplasty. Thus, the combined use of a porcine tongue and a 3D-printed cleft palate simulators are efficient as an educational model to practice Furlow double-opposing Z- palatoplasty. The porcine tongue simulators are superior in terms of organizational flexibility, ductility, and suturing simulators, while with the 3D-printed simulator, various palatoplasty techniques can be repeatedly practiced with better-simulated face and oral cavity.
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.