RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography is a first-line imaging in the investigation of women's irregular bleeding and other gynaecological pathologies, e.g. ovarian cysts and early pregnancy problems. However, teaching ultrasound, especially transvaginal scanning, remains a challenge for health professionals. New technology such as simulation may potentially facilitate and expedite the process of learning ultrasound. Simulation may prove to be realistic, very close to real patient scanning experience for the sonographer and objectively able to assist the development of basic skills such as image manipulation, hand-eye coordination and examination technique. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the face and content validity of a virtual reality simulator (ScanTrainer®, MedaPhor plc, Cardiff, Wales, UK) as reflective of real transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) scanning. METHOD: A questionnaire with 14 simulator-related statements was distributed to a number of participants with differing levels of sonography experience in order to determine the level of agreement between the use of the simulator in training and real practice. RESULTS: There were 36 participants: novices (n = 25) and experts (n = 11) who rated the simulator. Median scores of face validity statements between experts and non-experts using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) ratings ranged between 7.5 and 9.0 (p > 0.05) indicated a high level of agreement. Experts' median scores of content validity statements ranged from 8.4 to 9.0. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm that the simulator has the feel and look of real-time scanning with high face validity. Similarly, its tutorial structures and learning steps confirm the content validity.
RESUMEN
Clinical outcomes of IVF cycles using propofol or thiopental sodium as anaesthetic agents for oocyte retrieval were compared. The primary outcome measure was fertilization rate per patient. One hundred and eighty patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for IVF were randomized to receive either propofol (n = 90) or thiopental sodium (n = 90). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were present between the two groups. Overall fertilization rates were similar between propofol and thiopental sodium groups, respectively: median (IQR): 54.8 (29.2) versus 54.6 (29.7); fertilization rates for intracytoplasmic sperm injection only: median (IQR): 70 (50) versus 75 (50), respectively. For secondary outcome measures, time under anaesthesia was significantly increased in the thiopental sodium group: median (IQR): 12(5) versus 10 (4.5) min, P = 0.019 compared with the propofol group. Number of cumulus oocyte complexes retrieved [median (IQR): 7.1 (6.3) versus 6.5 (5.6)] did not differ significantly between the two groups. A non-significant difference in live birth rates per randomized patient of +4.4% (95% CI: -5.7 to +14.6) in favour of propofol was observed. Use of propofol compared with thiopental sodium for general anaesthesia during oocyte retrieval results in similar fertilization rates and IVF outcomes.