We have located links that may give you full text access.
Teaching paradigm for decision making in facial skin defect reconstructions.
Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery 1998 January
OBJECTIVE: To present a decision paradigm for facial defect reconstruction, and test the ability of this paradigm to improve resident performance.
DESIGN: A decision paradigm for reconstruction of facial skin defects is proposed and explained, with patient examples. The paradigm's usefulness is then tested with residents.
SETTING: Otolaryngology residency training program at a tertiary hospital.
STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Otolaryngology residents.
INTERVENTIONS: Twelve residents took a pretest wherein they were presented with drawings of skin defects and asked to choose the "best" (most aesthetically pleasing) type of reconstruction from a closed set. This paradigm was presented to these residents, and their posttest consisted of choosing again with the same defects and closed set of choices.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cosmetic outcomes of reconstructive decisions on the pretest and posttest were rated on a scale of 0 to 5 (with 0 indicating poor; 5, excellent).
RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in reconstructive choices between the pretest and posttest (P<.001, Student t test).
CONCLUSION: This paradigm can be easily modified to accommodate different surgical approaches preferred by individual surgeons and is thus useful in almost any reconstructive teaching situation.
DESIGN: A decision paradigm for reconstruction of facial skin defects is proposed and explained, with patient examples. The paradigm's usefulness is then tested with residents.
SETTING: Otolaryngology residency training program at a tertiary hospital.
STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Otolaryngology residents.
INTERVENTIONS: Twelve residents took a pretest wherein they were presented with drawings of skin defects and asked to choose the "best" (most aesthetically pleasing) type of reconstruction from a closed set. This paradigm was presented to these residents, and their posttest consisted of choosing again with the same defects and closed set of choices.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cosmetic outcomes of reconstructive decisions on the pretest and posttest were rated on a scale of 0 to 5 (with 0 indicating poor; 5, excellent).
RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in reconstructive choices between the pretest and posttest (P<.001, Student t test).
CONCLUSION: This paradigm can be easily modified to accommodate different surgical approaches preferred by individual surgeons and is thus useful in almost any reconstructive teaching situation.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app