ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
Evaluation of training models for intraventricular neuroendoscopy.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 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.
- A neutrosophic explainable AI framework for modeling uncertainty in immersive stereotactic neurosurgical simulation.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Structured surgical education has become increasingly important in recent years. Intraventricular neuroendoscopic procedures have been widely established. However, training surgical skills with these techniques is crucial for young residents due to the potential harm to adjacent tissue. Therefore, we evaluated two different training models. Participants in two different international workshops were trained on a prefixed cadaver model and on a living murine intraabdominal model. Crucial neuroendoscopic techniques such as membrane perforation and tissue biopsy were performed. A blinded questionnaire evaluated both models. Sixty-three participants were trained on the animal model. Forty of these were trained on the cadaver model. The training effect was evaluated almost equally, with 8.5/10 for the animal model and 8.9/10 for the cadaver model. The tissue properties were rated higher regarding realism in the animal model, whereas the anatomic realism was rated higher in the cadaver model. The animal model is a valid alternative to cadaver models for teaching endoscopic neurosurgical skills. This model benefits from the simulation of real surgical tissue properties, including bleeding. The low costs and availability of this technique make it more ubiquitous and can help train further generations of neurosurgeons.
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.