Swine and dynamic ultrasound models for trauma ultrasound testing of surgical residents.

BACKGROUND Trauma ultrasound workshops have been recommended for training surgical residents. We assessed the teaching effectiveness of the workshop, comparing swine and dynamic patient ultrasound models. MATERIALS AND METHODS MCQ exams on ultrasound physics and practical skills tests with and without pericardial or peritoneal fluid using four swines and eight dynamic patient ultrasound videos were used to compare pre- and postworkshop performance in 18 surgical residents (Group I) and a matched control group of 18 (Group II). Paired t tests and unpaired t tests for paired and unpaired data, respectively, were used for analysis with a P < 0.05 being considered statistically significant. RESULTS Mean scores (% correct response) +/- SD were as follows (*P < 0.05 vs Group I). [table: see text] For the swine model, the best scores were with pericardial fluid (25.0% pre vs 69.4% post in Group I) and the worst scores were with RUQ fluid (5.6% pre vs 22.2% post in Group I). Postworkshop dynamic video scores were always higher than the swine model scores in Group I (100% correct video scores for pericardial fluid). CONCLUSIONS This study confirms the trauma ultrasound workshop teaching effectiveness. For testing, the swine model (especially RUQ) was more difficult. In postcourse evaluation, the dynamic human video was considered more relevant, realistic, and less costly for repeated testing of the residents.

[1]  T. P. Davis,et al.  A prospective study of surgeon-performed ultrasound as the primary adjuvant modality for injured patient assessment. , 1995, The Journal of trauma.

[2]  G. Rozycki,et al.  Ultrasound training during ATLS: an early start for surgical interns. , 1996, The Journal of trauma.

[3]  Jameel Ali,et al.  Teaching Effectiveness of the Advanced Trauma Life Support Program as Demonstrated by an Objective Structured Clinical Examination for Practicing Physicians , 1996, World Journal of Surgery.

[4]  G. Rozycki,et al.  Ultrasound, what every trauma surgeon should know. , 1996, The Journal of trauma.

[5]  B. Boulanger,et al.  A prospective study of emergent abdominal sonography after blunt trauma. , 1994 .

[6]  A. V. van Vugt,et al.  Abdominal ultrasound as a reliable indicator for conclusive laparotomy in blunt abdominal trauma. , 1993, The Journal of trauma.

[7]  J R Mateer,et al.  Prospective analysis of a rapid trauma ultrasound examination performed by emergency physicians. , 1995, The Journal of trauma.

[8]  S. Shackford Focused ultrasound examinations by surgeons: the time is now. , 1993, The Journal of trauma.

[9]  E. Moore,et al.  Early definitive abdominal evaluation in the triage of unconscious normotensive blunt trauma patients. , 1994, Journal of Trauma.

[10]  G. Rozycki,et al.  Trauma ultrasound workshop improves physician detection of peritoneal and pericardial fluid. , 1996, The Journal of surgical research.

[11]  A. Rivkind,et al.  The accumulated experience of the Israeli Advanced Trauma Life Support program. , 1997, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[12]  T. Otsuka,et al.  Emergency center ultrasonography in the evaluation of hemoperitoneum: a prospective study. , 1991, The Journal of trauma.