Data in Brief (Aug 2021)

3D simulation of aneurysm clipping: Data analysis

  • Francisco Mery,
  • Carolina Méndez-Orellana,
  • Javier Torres,
  • Francisco Aranda,
  • Iván Caro,
  • José Pesenti,
  • Ricardo Rojas,
  • Pablo Villanueva,
  • Isabelle Germano

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 37
p. 107258

Abstract

Read online

Aneurysm clipping requires the proficiency of several skills, yet the traditional way of practicing them has been recently challenged. The use of simulators could be an alternative educational tool. The aim of this data analysis is to provide further evaluation of a reusable low-cost 3D printed training model we developed for aneurysm clipping [1]. The simulator was designed to replicate the bone structure, arteries and targeted aneurysms. Thirty-two neurosurgery residents performed a craniotomy and aneurysm clipping using the model and then filled out a survey. The survey was designed in two parts: a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire and three questions requiring written responses [1]. Two dimensions of the model were evaluated by the questionnaire: the face validity, assessed by 5 questions about the realism of the model, and the content validity, assessed by 6 questions regarding the usefulness of the model during the different steps of the training procedure. The three questions requiring written responses referred to the strengths and weaknesses of the simulator and a global yes/no question as to whether or not they would repeat the experience. Demographic data, experience level and survey responses of the residents were grouped in a dataset [2].A descriptive analysis was performed for each dimension. Then, the groups were compared according to their level of expertise (Junior and Senior groups) with an independent sample t-test. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was estimated, using a Weighted Least Squares Mean Variance adjusted (WLSMV) which works best for the ordinal data [3]. Fitness was calculated using chi-square (χ2) test, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). A non-significant χ2, CFI and TLI greater than 0.90 and RMSEA .05; CFI = 0.997; TLI = 0.996; RMSEA 0.058, without any error terms to exhibit covariance. Regarding the reliability of the questionnaire, the internal consistency was explored in the 10 items selected in the confirmatory factor analysis with an alpha coefficient (α = 0.941).

Keywords