ArticlePatient safety in surgery2024
Improving surgical technical skills for emergency fixation of unstable pelvic ring fractures: an experimental study using a pelvic ring fracture simulator.
Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Enhancing orthopaedic competency through simulation: A student-centered approach to bridge educational gaps.World journal of orthopedics · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of hemodynamically unstable pelvic ring injuries necessitates surgical intervention, often involving procedures such as external fixation and percutaneous screw placement. Given the infrequent performance of these procedures, regular training is imperative to ensure readiness for emergencies. Our pre- post simulation study aimed to adapt and validate a realistic simulation model for stabilizing unstable pelvic ring injuries, facilitating participants' knowledge retention and procedural confidence enhancement.
methodsA standardized simulator of an unstable pelvic ring utilizing synthetic pelvic bones featuring complete disruption of the symphysis and sacroiliac joint was developed. Trauma surgeons of a level one academic hospital were invited to perform external fixation and emergency sacroiliac screw application under C-arm guidance. Prior to and following the simulation session, participants completed a subjective questionnaire assessing their confidence in emergency interventions on a 10-point Likert scale (10-LS). Objective parameters, such as intraoperative imaging quality, reduction accuracy, and the positioning of screws, wires, and external fixators, were also evaluated as secondary outcome measures.
resultsFifteen trauma surgeons (10 residents, 5 consultants) participated in the simulation over the course of one day. The mean total operation time was 20.34 ± 6.06 min, without significant differences between consultants and residents (p = 0.604). The confidence for emergency SI-Screw placement increased significantly after the simulator (10-LS: Before = 3.8 ± 3.08 vs. After = 5.67 ± 2.35; p = 0.002) as well as after external fixation (10-LS: Before = 3.93 ± 2.79 vs. After = 6.07 ± 2.52; p = 0.002). In addition, confidence in (intraoperative) pelvic imaging increased significantly (10-LS: Before = 4.60 ± 3.0 vs. After = 6.53 ± 2.39; p = 0.011). Overall, the model was rated as a realistic simulation of clinical practice (10-LS = 7.87 ± 1.13).
conclusionsOur unstable pelvis fracture model is a tool to practice emergency interventions such as external fixation and percutaneous techniques. Participants benefitted from this in terms of technical instrumentation as well as intraoperative imaging. Further studies are required to validate the objective benefits and improvements that participants undergo through frequent training.
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.