Comparison of a Novel Trainer to a Traditional Swine Model for Training Providers in Lateral Canthotomy and Cantholysis. (21st March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Herder, Penelope Anne P; Lu, Michelle M; LaPorta, Anthony J; Ross, David W; Calvano, Christopher J; Enzenauer, Robert W
• Is Part Of: Military medicine. Volume 184(2019)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 342
• Page End: 346
• Publication Date: 2019-03-21
• Subjects: Lateral Canthotomy and Cantholysis -- Orbital Compartment syndrome -- Live Tissue Training (LTT) -- Strategic Operations Inc. (STOPS); Surgery, Military -- Societies, etc; Medicine, Military -- Societies, etc; Medicine, Military -- Periodicals; Surgery, Military -- Periodicals; Medicine, Military; Surgery, Military; Military Medicine -- Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.98023
• DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usy389
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0026-4075

Abstract

Abstract: Research Objective: Military personnel are at greater risks of head and facial traumas and permanent blindness from orbital compartment syndrome in modern warfare. Rapid treatment must be implemented with a low-risk surgical remedy: lateral canthotomy and cantholysis (LCC). Traditional training of LCC is primarily performed using an animal tissue trainer (ATT); however, limitations to these types of trainers exist. Therefore, our research objectives were focused on highlighting the effectiveness, benefits, and vision-saving potential of learning LCC on a synthetic trainer. Methods: Participants included 22 second-year medical students and 6 healthcare professionals. A pre-quiz assessed baseline knowledge. Next, an experienced ophthalmologist provided an overview and instruction. Subjects were randomized to either the synthetic trainer or the ATT and then switched to the other model for comparison. After performing LCC procedures on both models, a post-quiz and survey were administered. Results: Participants found the synthetic trainer easier to use than the ATT model ( p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant preference ( p = 0.23), or preference of practical eye anatomy ( p = 0.26) between the trainers. Post-quiz results demonstrated an overall improvement from pre-quiz scores for participants ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: The synthetic trainer is comparable to the traditional swine model for training LCC procedures, and should be considered as a future training platform.