Desarrollo de un tutorial web de cálculo numérico con herramientas de gestión de curso para la universidad nacional experimental de Guayana

En este trabajo se detalla el proceso de desarrollo de un tutorial web, con herramientas de gestión de curso, de la asignatura Cálculo Numérico, la cual forma parte del pensum de estudios de la carrera de Ingeniería en Informática de la Universidad Nacional Experimental de Guayana (UNEG). Esta investigación es de tipo documental debido a que el contenido del Tutorial Web está basado en documentos de los docentes encargados de la asignatura de Cálculo Numérico y en material bibliográfico encontrado en la Web; es descriptiva dado que se detalla, registra, analiza e interpreta la naturaleza actual, composición y procesos del tutorial; y por último es aplicada ya que el resultado de la investigación será el tutorial que se utilizará en la universidad. El marco teórico tiene elementos de la teoría del aprendizaje constructivista, una de las principales teorías a desarrollar e implantar en los entornos de enseñanza y aprendizaje basados en los modelos blearning. La metodología empleada para el desarrollo del tutorial es la propuesta por Álvaro Galvis (1994) haciendo énfasis en una serie de aspectos que son fundamentales como análisis de necesidades educativas, diseño del tutorial, desarrollo y pruebas. El tutorial está adaptado a las necesidades de la asignatura mencionada en pro de constituirse en un medio o instrumento de mucha ayuda para el profesor, en particular, y al alumnado, en general, a través de herramientas de gestión de curso con la finalidad de lograr un aprendizaje activo, dado que los sistemas de b‐learning pueden complementar eficazmente la formación presencial, llevándola a una nueva dimensión que permite la interacción continua entre profesores y alumnos

Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System

© 2022 The authors.OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.N