CORR Insights®: Teaching the Basics: Development and Validation of a Distal Radius Reduction and Casting Model

Levin, Paul E.

doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5361-2

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only three articles focused on the use of high-fidelity models for teaching closed reduction of distal radial fractures ( Egan et al, 2013 ; Mayne et al, 2016 ; Seeley et al, 2017 ). Two further commentary pieces ( Kelly and Nolan, 2016 ; Levin, 2017 ) referred specifically to the findings of these three articles. The low number of studies in this field was surprising, based on the high incidence of distal radial fractures and the apparent suitability of this injury for simulation training.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The (Kelly and Nolan, 2016;Levin, 2017) importance of simulation models in general, and the future potential for simulation training in this field were raised by two commentary pieces (Kelly and Nolan, 2016;Levin, 2017). Levin cited that "the opportunity to learn procedural and operative skills before utilizing these skills on patients will dramatically help ease the ethical tension of training future surgeons while protecting patient autonomy and the primacy of patient welfare" (Levin, 2017), and therein lies the likely benefit for such bench models, in providing an opportunity for repeatedly practicing a skill without potential risks to patients. However, both commentaries balanced these aspirational comments with reflections that the cost, durability, and longevity of such wrist fracture models would influence the availability and usage of such models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All three of the articles discussing high-fidelity distal radius fracture reduction simulators ( Egan et al, 2013 ; Mayne et al, 2016 ; Seeley et al, 2017 ), and two commentary pieces ( Kelly and Nolan, 2016 ; Levin, 2017 ) which discussed the latter two articles, all recognise the potential benefits of the discussed simulation training systems, particularly given the opportunity for learners to receive feedback on a clinical skill. All three studies’ questionnaires demonstrated good levels of face validity, but results of more objective measures were more mixed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Levin’s recognition of simulation’s role in teaching medical procedural skills in a safe setting ( Levin, 2017 ) is key to the value of simulation training. However “simulation is not real life” ( Jain, Schwarzkopf and Scolaro, 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A scoping review of high-fidelity bench models for teaching closed reduction of distal radial fractures

Craig¹,

Walsh²

2021

MedEdPublish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Simulation training can be beneficial for developing clinical skills without risks to patients. This review considers the literature on simulation models used for teaching closed reduction (manipulation) procedures for distal radius (wrist) fractures, particularly high-fidelity models, and the evidence supporting the use of such models. Methods:A scoping review of Medline and Embase was performed. Results:Five articles described low-fidelity models, predominantly focussing on low costs and teaching basic principles. Three articles and two commentary pieces discussing high-fidelity models were identified. Discussion:Attitudes towards a high-fidelity simulator were assessed by Egan et al. (2013), who found the majority of participants to be in favour of the model's use as a teaching tool, although participant selection may have been subject to bias. Mayne et al. (2016) subsequently used a high-fidelity model including radio-opaque markers and more objective measurements tools to assess orthopaedic trainees' closed reduction technique and adequacy of the achieved fracture position and casting. Seniority correlated with higher scores on objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) and global rating scores (GRS) but not radiological measures of fracture position or cast quality, and over 90% of all participants achieved an adequate reduction. Seeley et al. (2017) used radiological measurements and time to task completion with another high-fidelity reduction model. The two most experienced participant groups could not be differentiated on any radiological measures of fracture reduction or on the time taken for reduction, although these groups were significantly better than the most

show abstract