Validity of a Novel Digitally Enhanced Skills Training Station for Freehand Distal Interlocking
, Tatjana Pastor 3, Philipp Kastner 1,4, Firas Souleiman 1,5, Matthias Knobe 2,6,7, Boyko Gueorguiev 1, Markus Windolf 1 and Jan Buschbaum 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the present study, the authors present a Novel Digitally Enhanced Skills Training Station which is used for Freehand Distal Interlocking.
They assessed this concept's construct and face validity for training distal interlocking of intramedullary nails. There was a first step of the validation cascade. Obtained results show significant and plausible differences were found between experts and novices. Therefore, they expressed a considerable training potential for distal interlocking and other surgical training procedures using fluoroscopic guidance.
In my opinion, they should improve the DEHST and consider notices from users such as bone too soft, drill machine too light, power drill different from reality, no continuous fluoroscopy, size of C-arm too small and the device doesn’t simulate a real operation etc. Also, I would like to ask if it is possible to involve a navigation system with AV (augmented reality) in this project? Maybe, these technologies would be useful.
The paper is very well prepared, by some issues should be improved. For example, the legends of Figures 2 and 3 should be on the same page. Also, whole table 1 should be on one page.
I recommend this article to publish after minor revision.
Author Response
Thank you for your supportive and positive review. Please see the attachment for details
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript number: medicina-1745782
Title: “Validity of a novel digitally enhanced skills training station for freehand distal interlocking”
The purpose of this study was assessing construct and face validity of a new Digital Enhanced Hands-On Surgical Training (DEHST) concept for training of distal interlocking of intramedullary nails. It is well described article with proper method and conclusion. It is acceptable
Title
Good
Abstract
Good
Methods
Good.
Results
Good.
Discussion
Good.
Conclusion
Good.
References
Good.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive feedback
