Creation of a Novel 3D-Printed Amniocentesis Simulation Model and Impact on Resident Confidence
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Non-invasive prenatal screening has decreased opportunities for diagnostic antenatal procedures during residency training. Commercially available models are often cost prohibitive while homemade models can be low fidelity and non-reusable.
Objective: To create a training tool with realistic anatomy, tissue-specific tactile sensation, and cost-effective assembly for amniocentesis procedural technique practice and evaluate its impact on trainee confidence with performance.
Study Design: Collaborating with biomedical engineering students, our team defined several characteristics to achieve a high-fidelity model: compatible with ultrasound, anatomically accurate, demonstrate tactile realism, endure repeat use, and be cost-effective. A 3-D printed model was created that satisfied fidelity guidelines after rigorous materials and imaging testing.
Results: We implemented the model in the observed structured clinical exam for Obstetrics and Gynecology residents in which trainees (PGY2-4) performed an amniocentesis after guided practice with Maternal-Fetal Medicine faculty. Residents were given pre and post-simulation Likert scale surveys regarding confidence and satisfaction with the model. Descriptive analyses and paired t-test were used for analysis. 19 residents completed both pre and post surveys. Mean resident confidence in performing an amniocentesis increased from 1.6 to 3.2 (p<0.001, scale 1-5) after the practice session. Most residents (89.5%) strongly agreed that the model was easy to use and would use it to practice independently.
Conclusion: This novel 3-D printed, ultrasound compatible, anatomically accurate, and cost-effective amniocentesis model provides high-fidelity procedural practice and improved trainee confidence. Models such as these have the potential to greatly impact skill development for rare procedures. Future directions include modifying this model for additional fetal procedures, such as cordocentesis.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Midtrimester amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis. Safety and accuracy. JAMA. Sep 27 1976;236(13):1471-6. doi:10.1001/jama.1976.03270140023016
3. Tabor A, Vestergaard CH, Lidegaard O. Fetal loss rate after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: an 11-year national registry study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Jul 2009;34(1):19-24. doi:10.1002/uog.6377
4. Alfirevic Z, Navaratnam K, Mujezinovic F. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Sep 4 2017;9(9):CD003252. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003252.pub2
5. Akolekar R, Bower S, Flack N, Bilardo CM, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of miscarriage and stillbirth at 11-13 weeks and the contribution of chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn. Jan 2011;31(1):38-45. doi:10.1002/pd.2644Tabor A,
6. Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010;27(1):1-7. doi:10.1159/000271995
7. Ghidini A, Sepulveda W, Lockwood CJ, Romero R. Complications of fetal blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. May 1993;168(5):1339-44. doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(11)90761-3
8. Silver RK, Russell TL, Kambich MP, Leeth EA, MacGregor SN, Sholl JS. Midtrimester amniocentesis. Influence of operator caseload on sampling efficiency. J Reprod Med. Mar 1998;43(3):191-5.
9. Khurshid N, Trampe B, Heiser T, et al. 420: Impact of an amniocentesis simulation curriculum for training in MFM fellowship program. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;210(1):S212-S213. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.453
10. Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES Core Curriculum in Obstetrics and Gynecology 13th Edition. https://www.acog.org/-/media/project/acog/acogorg/files/creog/creog-educational-objectives-13th-edition.pdf
11. Chiavacci I, O’Gorman P. Propagation speed. Radiopaedia.org. Published online July 23, 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.53347/rid-46915
12. Database Summary» IT’IS Foundation. itis.swiss. https://itis.swiss/virtual-population/tissue-properties/database/database-summary/
13. Johnson BA, Timberlake M, Steinberg RL, Kosemund M, Mueller B, Gahan JC. Design and Validation of a Low-Cost, High-Fidelity Model for Urethrovesical Anastomosis in Radical Prostatectomy. J Endourol. Apr 2019;33(4):331-336. doi:10.1089/end.2018.0871
14. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. Sep 7 2011;306(9):978-88. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1234
15. Nitsche JF, Brost BC. The use of simulation in maternal-fetal medicine procedure training. Semin Perinatol. Jun 2013;37(3):189-98. doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2013.02.011
16. Tongprasert F, Srisupundit K, Luewan S, Phadungkiatwattana P, Pranpanus S, Tongsong T. Midpregnancy cordocentesis training of maternal-fetal medicine fellows. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Jul 2010;36(1):65-8. doi:10.1002/uog.7626
17. Wijnberger LD, van der Schouw YT, Christiaens GC. Learning in medicine: chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn. Mar 2000;20(3):241-6.
18. AMNIO ABBY® - Ultrasound Guided Invasive Procedures Simulator. GTSimulators.com. Published 2021. Accessed December 11, 2023. https://www.gtsimulators.com/products/amnio-abby%C2%AE-ultrasound-guided-invasive-procedures-simulator-ar60
19. CAE Blue PhantomTM Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling Ultrasound Training Model. www.worldpoint.com. Accessed December 11, 2023. https://www.worldpoint.com/percu-umbcord-blood-samp-ustm
20. Zubair I, Marcotte MP, Weinstein L, Brost BC. A novel amniocentesis model for learning stereotactic skills. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Mar 2006;194(3):846-8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.068
21. McWeeney DT, Schwendemann WD, Nitsche JF, et al. Transabdominal and transcervical chorionic villus sampling models to teach maternal-fetal medicine fellows. Am J Perinatol. Aug 2012;29(7):497-502. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1310518
22. Tassin M, Cordier AG, Laher G, Benachi A, Mandelbrot L. [Amniocentesis trainer: development of a cheap and reproducible new training model]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). Nov 2012;41(7):679-83. Simulateur d'amniocentese : interets et developpement d'un nouveau modele reproductible et economique. doi:10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.05.002
23. Nourallah G, Ryan G, Abbasi N, et al. Development of a Training Model for Teaching Intrauterine Fetal Blood Transfusion. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. Aug 2022;44(8):931-933. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2022.03.019
24. Dalton SE, Gregg AR, Ho M. Second-Trimester Uterine Model for Teaching Ultrasound-Guided Obstetric Procedures. J Ultrasound Med. Aug 2017;36(8):1723-1731. doi:10.7863/ultra.16.08040
25. Codsi E, Brost BC, Nitsche JF. Hands-on Simulation Workshop for Obstetric Ultrasound-Guided Invasive Procedures. MedEdPORTAL. 2022;18:11250. doi:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11250