An interventional study of Instructional video and Instructional workshop in Fourth Degree Perineal Laceration Involving Anal Mucosa, Obstetric; Injury and Obstetric Labor Complications, sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-04-18.
Sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
Help build ClinicalTrials.gg — short surveys, remote interviews or testing, in your language. Take part →
This is a study evaluating the use of the modified beef tongue model for teaching repair of obstetrical fourth-degree laceration to residents. Participants will be randomized to either an instructional video using the modified beef tongue model or to an instructional workshop using the modified beef tongue model. Primary outcome will be measured as change in technical skills score as measured by change from baseline on a validated objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSTATS) for repair of fourth-degree laceration.
Institutional Review Board approval has been obtained and written informed consent will be obtained prior to initiation of the study. All obstetrics and gynecology residents at the University of Alabama will be eligible for the study.
Eligible residents who desire will be enrolled and consented for the trial. Participants will then complete a short pre-intervention knowledge assessment written test and be asked to rate their confidence level in completing a fourth-degree repair based on a Likert scale. The written test is the same as the one used by Patel et al to evaluate residents' knowledge about fourth-degree laceration repair. The questions are based on Williams's obstetric chapter on episiotomy repair and showed construct validity given a significant difference in scores between postgraduate year (PGY)-1 and PGY-4 residents. Participants will also complete a baseline objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) assessment for repair of fourth-degree obstetric laceration on a commercial anatomical replica, the Sultan Anal Sphincter Trainer (Limbs \& Things Inc, Savannah, Georgia). This model comes with a replaceable perineal pad that allows approximately 24 repairs before replacement is necessary. The validated OSATS used will be the assessment described by Siddiqui et al and validated on a surgical model. The repair will be videotaped and then distributed to evaluators who will use the 20 item task specific checklist described by Siddiqui et al. The time taken for the repair will be recorded.
Demographic and baseline data will be collected on the participants including PGY level, number of fourth-degree lacerations performed, whether they have read a textbook regarding fourth-degree laceration repair, whether they have read a journal article regarding fourth-degree laceration repair, whether they have attended a didactic session in pelvic anatomy, and whether they have attended a didactic session on fourth-degree laceration repair.
Participants will then be randomized into two groups. Randomization will be performed using a computer-generated block design so that each group has a balanced number of residents in each postgraduate year training level. One group will be randomized to the modified beef tongue video and one will be randomized to the modified beef tongue instructional workshop. The modified beef tongue video group will be given an instructional video created using the modified beef tongue model to show anatomy and proper repair of the laceration. The group randomized to the modified beef tongue instructional workshop will undergo an interactive workshop using the modified beef tongue model to show anatomy and proper repair of the laceration.
The modified beef tongue for the video and workshop will be prepared according to the model previously described in the literature. The modified model includes beef tripe (small intestine) used for anal mucosa and chicken leg muscles for anal sphincter muscle analogs. The tripe is tunneled through the body of the trimmed beef tongue and sutured like an ostomy to simulate the anal canal. The tongue is incised toward the tripe "anal canal." Chicken leg muscles are tunneled from the incision out to the cut edges of the beef tongue to create anal sphincter muscle analogs.
Following the didactic intervention, participants from each group will be given the written knowledge assessment test again and the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) for repair of fourth-degree laceration on the commercial anatomical replica again. The time taken for the repair will be recorded. Residents will also be asked to evaluate model realism, ease of use, and satisfaction using a Likert scale. The residents will be asked to assess their confidence again using a Likert scale.
The participants will then be crossed over and those who were initially randomized to the video group will then undergo the instructional workshop and the ones initially in the workshop group will be given the instructional video. Participants will then be asked to rate their overall preference between models on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the video and 10 being the instructional workshop. They will also complete the written knowledge test again.
The results of this trial may help to inform to a cost- and time-efficient manner of instruction on the repair of 3rd and 4th degree lacerations. A weakness is that it is unclear whether this will translate to effectiveness at the time of an actual third- and fourth-degree repair.
2,217 studies on the registry are indexed under Wounds and Injuries; 441 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 32 is below the median of 70 across 1,424 interventional studies indexed under Wounds and Injuries.
Browse Wounds and Injuries studies →University of Alabama at Birmingham is the lead sponsor of 1,421 studies on the registry; 277 are open to participants now.
Of its 164 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 130 (79%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
The modified beef tongue video group will be given an instructional video created using the modified beef tongue model to show anatomy and proper repair of the laceration.
Other: Instructional video
The group randomized to the modified beef tongue instructional workshop will undergo an interactive workshop using the modified beef tongue model to show anatomy and proper repair of the laceration.
Other: Instructional workshop
Instructional video using the modified beef tongue model
Instructional workshop using the modified beef tongue model.
Technical skills score
The primary outcome will be change in technical skills score measured as change from baseline in a validated objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) for repair of fourth degree obstetric laceration. This OSATS was described by Siddiqui et al and is based on a task-specific checklist for fourth-degree lacerations and has a maximum score of 20 and minimum score of 0. The higher the score the better the performance.
Time frame: up to 24 weeks
Participant preference
Participant preference of model between instructional video and instructional workshop. Participants will be asked to rate their overall preference between models on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the video and 10 being the instructional workshop.
Time frame: up to 24 weeks
Knowledge assessment
Knowledge assessed by written test performed pre- and post-intervention. The written test is the same as the one used by Patel et al to evaluate residents' knowledge about fourth-degree laceration repair. The questions are based on Williams's obstetric chapter on episiotomy repair. The test has a minimum score of 0 and maximum score of 17 with a higher score indicating better performance.
Time frame: up to 24 weeks
Participant confidence
Participant's confidence in fourth-degree laceration repair as measured by change in confidence score from pre- to post-intervention. This is based on the participant's response to a 10 point Likert scale with 1 being not confident and 10 being completely confident.
Time frame: up to 24 weeks
Time of repair
Time taken for repair of fourth degree laceration
Time frame: up to 24 weeks
Ease of use of model
Ease of use of the model as reported by participants. This is based on the participant's response to a 10 point Likert scale with 1 being not easy and 10 being the easiest.
Time frame: up to 24 weeks
Satisfaction
Overall satisfaction of each model as reported by participants. This is based on the participant's response to a 10 point Likert scale with 1 being not satisfied and 10 being completely satisfied.
Time frame: up to 24 weeks
Model realism
Model realism as reported by participants. This is based on the participant's response to a 10 point Likert scale with 1 being not realistic and 10 being the most realistic.
Time frame: up to 24 weeks
Factors associated with higher knowledge scores
Factors associated with higher knowledge scores (e.g. PGY level, number of prior repairs, prior didactics). The written test is the same as the one used by Patel et al to evaluate residents' knowledge about fourth-degree laceration repair. The questions are based on Williams's obstetric chapter on episiotomy repair. The test has a minimum score of 0 and maximum score of 17 with a higher score indicating better performance.
Time frame: up to 24 weeks
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
Ran from Nov 2017 to primary completion in Mar 2018, 4 months.
Of 547 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Wounds and Injuries, half reached primary completion within 24 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 9 and three quarters within 49. This study's 4 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 600 studies reached it within 24 months; a quarter within 9 and three quarters within 48.
Wounds and Injuries covers many different conditions, not one, so the studies compared here vary widely. Read these figures as a rough guide.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Alabama at Birmingham →