Results of training with a low-cost simulation model for endoscope-assisted scaphocephaly repair

Objective: Endoscope-assisted repair of sagittal craniosynostosis is an effective technique that requires a learning curve. Surgical simulation models can be applied to acquire the necessary skills for this procedure. Several models with a wide range of costs have been described for training in this technique. The aim of this work was to present the results of training with a low-cost simulation model for endoscope-assisted sagittal craniosynostosis repair.

Methods: A simulation model for sagittal craniosynostosis was developed using low-cost materials. The model is easily assembled and allows successive uses. Three neurosurgery residents, 3 fellows, and 2 neurosurgeons performed a 4-session training program in sagittal craniosynostosis repair. The Global Rating Scale (GRS) score, number of errors, and the time required to perform the task were reported by 2 independent evaluators using a checklist. Measurements were compared between the first and last training using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. All participants completed a questionnaire (5-point Likert scale) regarding the realism of the simulation model.

Results: A model was developed to recreate the steps required to perform an endoscope-assisted scaphocephaly repair with the patient in a simulated sphinx position. All participants improved their GRS performance between the first and final training. The median time needed to perform the initial training was 47.5 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 44.5-48 minutes, interrater difference [IRD] p = 0.77), and for the last training was 40.5 minutes (IQR 35.5-43 minutes, IRD p > 0.99). The median number of errors reported in the initial training was 5.5 (IQR 3-7.75 errors, IRD p = 0.8), and in the last training was 1 (IQR 0.75-2.25 errors, IRD p = 0.35). There was a statistically significant difference regarding the time and number of errors between the initial and final training (p < 0.001). More than 85% of the participants found that the surface anatomy, skull and anterior fontanel, fused sagittal suture, and epidural space of the model were realistic and had appropriate detail required to perform the surgery. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the endoscope handling was realistic, and that the steps and skills required to complete the task were representative of those required for the real procedure.

Conclusions: A low-cost sagittal craniosynostosis simulation model was developed, allowing successive uses. The acquisition of skills within the simulation was demonstrated for all participants regarding the GRS score and the number of errors and time needed to perform the task. In addition, the model was found to be realistic in terms of anatomical references and the procedural steps required for this minimally invasive technique.