Elayah SA, Al-Watary MQ, Sakran KA, Chao Y, Jingtao L, Hanyao H, Li Y, Shi B. Two cleft palate simulators of Furlow double-opposing Z- palatoplasty: a comparative study.
BMC Surg 2023;
23:302. [PMID:
37794436 PMCID:
PMC10552431 DOI:
10.1186/s12893-023-02201-5]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2023] [Accepted: 09/19/2023] [Indexed: 10/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE
This 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 METHODS
A 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.
RESULTS
All 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).
CONCLUSION
Both 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.
Collapse