ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024
Validation of a synthetic simulation model of endoscopic rectus sheath plication.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. 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.
- TUSILS-SRA: A Modified Way of Costal Cartilage Harvest for Rhinoplasty.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Advanced Simulation System for Orbitozygomatic Fracture Reconstruction: Multicenter Validation of a Novel Training and Objective Assessment Platform.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLiterature reviews outline minimally invasive approaches for abdominal diastasis in patients without skin excess. However, few surgeons are trained in endoscopic rectus sheath plication, and no simulated training programs exist for this method. This study aimed to develop and validate a synthetic simulation model for the training of skills in this approach under the Messick validity framework.
methodsA cross-sectional study was carried out to assess the participants' previous level of laparoscopic/endoscopic skills by a questionnaire. Participants performed an endoscopic plication on the model and their performance was evaluated by one blinded observer using the global rating scale OSATS and a procedure specific checklist (PSC) scale. A 5-level Likert survey was applied to 5 experts and 4 plastic surgeons to assess Face and Content validity.
resultsFifteen non-experts and 5 experts in abdominal wall endoscopic surgery were recruited. A median OSATS score [25 (range 24-25) vs 14 (range 5-22); p < 0.05 of maximum 25 points] and a median PSC score [11 (range 10-11) vs 8 (range 3-10); p < 0.05 of maximum 11 points] was significantly higher for experts compared with nonexperts. All experts agreed or strongly agreed that the model simulates a real scenario of endoscopic plication of the rectus sheath.
conclusionOur simulation model met all validation criteria outlined in the Messick framework, demonstrating its ability to differentiate between experts and non-experts based on their baseline endoscopic surgical skills. This model stands as a valuable tool for evaluating skills in endoscopic rectus sheath plication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38767716What 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.