How Neuronavigators Changed Our Traditional Surgeries Discussion
How Neuronavigators Changed Our Traditional Surgeries Discussion
Neuro Navigators Source (Wells-Quinn 2019) Type of source Secondary Description This resource was published in 2019, it reviews the available navigations to assist different techniques. Also, the authors described why hospitals need this new technology, especially for spine surgeries. Where to use? To talk about the purpose of the neuronavigational and how it can be used in different surgical techniques. (Powell 1999) Primary To name the methods and the technologies used in specific surgical situation. (Leavens 1964) Primary This is a clinical review were the author described briefly all new types of navigation methods This journal article describes all known brain tumors, and how to diagnose them. (Daniel A Orringer 2012) Secondary (Ian J.Gerard 2016) primary This resource is rich with many information. It reviews the limitation for some navigation systems and brain imaging environment is discussed as well. In this research, brain shift phenomena was discussed by giving quantification and explanations to I need information about the tumor names and where they occur to understand the overall navigation system. However, since this journal is old, I can understand how diagnosis differs now after inventing advanced technologies. I can use this resource to compare the navigation system and discuss the comparison between them. Also, there are real data that can be used to support ideas. One of the causes is the inaccurate neuron avigation information. Also, it highlights the fact that images may not be reliable in some minimize the causes effects. (David Cheong 2011) primary In this article doctors discussed a surgery plan for a patient with sarcoma. Sarcoma is a rare cancer that the cells attached to the bones and soft tissue locations. (Ronnie Wong 2014) secondary In this document, surgical navigators’ limitations and strength were discussed by using data and other studies in all surgical fields. cases. I can use this as limitations of neuro navigations. Though out the surgery, the doctors used computer navigation techniques with combination of other methods to find out that navigation systems provided accurate and precise feedback though out the surgery. I can use this as an argument with the previous source. Overall, it is proven that surgical navigations helped in saving time, reduce hospital cost. I can argue about the advantages of surgical navigator in economic perspective too. References Daniel A Orringer, Alexandra Golby, and Ferenc Jolesz. 2012. “Neuronavigation in the surgical management of brain tumors: current and future trends.” National Center for Biotechnology Information . Sep 9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3563325/. David Cheong, and G.Douglas Letson. 2011. “Computer-Assisted Navigation and.” Sage journals 6. Ian J.Gerard, Marta Kersten-Oertel, Kevin Petrecca, Denis Sirhan, Jeffery A.Hall and D.Louis Collins. 2016. “Brain shift in neuronavigation of brain tumors: A review.” Elsevier 18. Leavens, Milam E. 1964. “Brain Tumors.” The Americal Journal of Nursing 64 no.3 78-81. Powell, Michael. 1999. “Recent Advances: Neurosugery.” British Medical Journal 318 no.7175 35-38. Ronnie Wong, Jamil Jivraj, and Victor X.D. Yang. 2014. “Current Limitations and Opportunities for Surgical Navigation.” semantic scholar. Dec. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/06f1/4a8ece8b50c9d6a1fe15cb4cc0136589d9ca.pdf. Wells-Quinn, Gregory M.Malham and Thomas. 2019. “Journal of Spine Surgery.” National Center for Biotechnology Information . Mar. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6465454/.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||