Best Practices Using Ex Vivo Animal Brain Models in Neurosurgical Education to Assess Surgical Expertise
Best Practices Using Ex Vivo Animal Brain Models in Neurosurgical Education to Assess Surgical Expertise
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.wneu.2021.08.061
复制
发表时间：
2021-10-27
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Del Maestro, Rolando F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alsayegh, Ahmad;Bakhaidar, Mohamad;Del Maestro, Rolando F.
背景：体外动物脑模拟模型越来越多地被用于神经外科训练，因为这些模型可以复制人类的大脑状况。本报告的目的是为对使用体外动物脑模拟模型感兴趣的神经外科团体提供全面和严格地进行、记录和评估这类研究的指导方针。方法：与参与体外模型研究的医生和研究人员组成的跨学科小组进行磋商，并查阅有关模拟研究最佳实践指南的文献，我们制定了“用于评估手术专业知识的体外脑模型”(EVBMASE)核对表。EVBMASE核对表为分析和报告涉及这些模型的研究提供了一个全面的量化框架。我们将EVBMASE核对表应用于已报道的体外动物脑模型的研究，以证明当前的体外脑模拟模型如何用于培训外科专业知识。结果：EVBMASE量表包括明确的部分，总分为20分，可以帮助研究者改进研究，为读者提供技术，以更好地评估研究的质量和任何不足之处。我们将18个已发表的体外脑模型分为改良(第1组)和未改良(第2组)模型。EVBMASE总分第1组为11分(55%)，第2组为4.8分(24.2%)，差异有统计学意义(P=0.006)，主要是由于模拟研究设计部分的差异(P=0.003)。结论：本研究结果有助于更严格地应用、记录和评估体外脑模拟研究。
BACKGROUND: Ex vivo animal brain simulation models are being increasingly used for neurosurgical training because these models can replicate human brain conditions. The goal of the present report is to provide the neurosurgical community interested in using ex vivo animal brain simulation models with guidelines for comprehensively and rigorously conducting, documenting, and assessing this type of research. METHODS: In consultation with an interdisciplinary group of physicians and researchers involved in ex vivo models and a review of the literature on the best practices guidelines for simulation research, we developed the "ex vivo brain model to assess surgical expertise" (EVBMASE) checklist. The EVBMASE checklist provides a comprehensive quantitative framework for analyzing and reporting studies involving these models. We applied The EVBMASE checklist to the studies reported of ex vivo animal brain models to document how current ex vivo brain simulation models are used to train surgical expertise. RESULTS: The EVBMASE checklist includes defined subsections and a total score of 20, which can help investigators improve studies and provide readers with tech -iques to better assess the quality and any deficiencies of the research. We classified 18 published ex vivo brain models into modified (group 1) and nonmodified (group 2) models. The mean total EVBMASE score was 11 (55%) for group 1 and 4.8 (24.2%) for group 2, a statistically significant difference (P = 0.006) mainly attributed to differences in the simulation study design section (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings should help contribute to more rigorous application, documentation, and assessment of ex vivo brain simulation research.