Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-06T19:18:22.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feasibility and validation of a synthetic airway model for in situ laser dissection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2024

Thomas Daniel Milner ,
Jiak-Ying Tan Open the ORCID record for Jiak-Ying Tan [Opens in a new window] ,
Elaine Baird ,
William Andrew Clement ,
Jenny Montgomery Open the ORCID record for Jenny Montgomery [Opens in a new window]  and
Saleh Okhovat
Thomas Daniel Milner*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
Jiak-Ying Tan
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK
Elaine Baird
Affiliation:
Department of Maxillofacial Prosthetics, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
William Andrew Clement
Affiliation:
Department of Paediatric Otolaryngology, Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow, UK
Jenny Montgomery
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
Saleh Okhovat
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
*
Corresponding author: Thomas Daniel Milner; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

This study measured the effectiveness of an in-house designed, cast silicone airway model in addressing the lack of easily accessible, validated transoral laser microsurgery simulation models.

Methods

Participants performed resection of two marked vocal fold lesions on the model. The model underwent face, content and construct validation assessment using a five-point Likert scale questionnaire measuring the mean resection time for each lesion and the completeness of lesion excision. Comparative analyses were performed for these measures.

Results

Thirteen otolaryngologists participated in this study. The model achieved validation threshold on all face and content measures (median, ≥4). Construct validation was demonstrated by the improvement in mean resection time between lesions one and two (86 vs 54 seconds, W = 11, p = 0.017). The mean resection time was lower amongst more senior otolaryngologists (61.5 vs 107.1 seconds, W = 11, p = 0.017).

Conclusion

This synthetic silicone model is a low-cost, easily reproducible, high-fidelity synthetic airway model, demonstrating face, content and construct validity.

Keywords

lasersendoscopylarynxsimulation training
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Thomas Daniel Milner takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented at the American Head and Neck Society 11th International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer: Montreal, QC, Canada, 8–12 July 2023.

References

Jones, TM, De, M, Foran, B, Harrington, K, Mortimore, S. Laryngeal cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary guidelines. J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:S75–S82Google Scholar
Otolaryngology curriculum. In: https://www.iscp.ac.uk/iscp/curriculum/otolaryngology-curriculum/1-introduction/ [2023]Google Scholar
Vilaseca-González, I, Bernal-Sprekelsen, M, Blanch-Alejandro, J-L, Moragas-Lluis, M. Complications in transoral CO2 laser surgery for carcinoma of the larynx and hypopharynx. Head Neck 2003;25:382–8Google Scholar
Bernal-Sprekelsen, M, Blanch, J-L, Caballero-Borrego, M, Vilaseca, I. The learning curve in transoral laser microsurgery for malignant tumors of the larynx and hypopharynx: parameters for a levelled surgical approach. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:623–8Google Scholar
Shahzad, S, Anwar, I. Apprenticeship model in 21st century’s surgical education: should it perish?. Archives of Surgical Research 2021;2:1–3Google Scholar
Evans, CH, Schenarts, KD. Evolving educational techniques in surgical training. Surg Clin North Am 2016;96:71–88Google Scholar
An NHS under pressure. In: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/an-nhs-under-pressure [2023]Google Scholar
Clements, JM, Burke, JR, Hope, C, Nally, DM, Doleman, B, Giwa, L, et al. The quantitative impact of Covid-19 on surgical training in the United Kingdom. BJS Open 2021;5:zrab051Google Scholar
Hope, C, Reilly, JJ, Griffiths, G, Lund, J, Humes, D. The impact of Covid-19 on surgical training: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol 2021;25:505–20Google Scholar
Chan, CY, Lau, DPC. Simulators and models for laryngeal laser surgery and laser myringotomy. Laryngoscope 2016;126:2089–91Google Scholar
Bressler, SE, Adkins, LK, Dunham, ME, Walvekar, RR, Jung, JP, Belgodere, JA, et al. A modular surgical simulator for microlaryngoscopy using standard instruments and the carbon dioxide laser. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2022;7:1065–70Google Scholar
Chang, J, Wu, X, Kahng, PW, Halter, RJ, Paydarfar, JA. Cadaver head holder for transoral surgical simulation. Laryngoscope 2018;128:2341–4Google Scholar
Hoffman, MR, Kletzien, H, Dailey, SH, McMurray, JS. Simulation of KTP laser-based Zenker diverticulotomy with a porcine model and laryngeal dissection station. OTO Open 2017;1:2473974X17736288Google Scholar
Pankhania, R, Pelly, T, Bowyer, H, Shanmugathas, N, Wali, A. A systematic review of low-cost simulators in ENT surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2021;135:486–91Google Scholar
Stasche, N, Quirrenbach, T, Bärmann, M, Krebs, M, Harrass, M, Friedrich, K. IMOLA – a new larynx model for surgical training. Education in transoral laser microsurgery of the upper airways. Hno 2005;53:869–72, 74–5Google Scholar
Fitts, PM, Posner, MI Human performance. Belmonth: California Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1967Google Scholar
de Montbrun, SL, Macrae, H. Simulation in surgical education. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2012;25:156–65Google Scholar
White, C, Rodger, MWM, Tang, T. Current understanding of learning psychomotor skills and the impact on teaching laparoscopic surgical skills. Obstet Gynaecol 2016;18:53–63Google Scholar
Jones, F, Passos-Neto, C, Braghiroli, O. Simulation in medical education: brief history and methodology. Princ Pract Clin Res 2015;1:56–63Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, AK, Rotaru, GM, Derler, S, Spano, F, Camenzind, M, Annaheim, S, et al. Materials used to simulate physical properties of human skin. Skin Res Technol 2016;22:3–14Google Scholar
Smith, GT, Lurie, KL, Zlatev, DV, Liao, JC, Ellerbee Bowden, AK. Multimodal 3D cancer-mimicking optical phantom. Biomed Opt Express 2016;7:648–62Google Scholar
James, HK, Chapman, AW, Pattison, GTR, Griffin, DR, Fisher, JD. Systematic review of the current status of cadaveric simulation for surgical training. Br J Surg 2019;106:1726–34Google Scholar