Cargando…

Comparative performance of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: Are all models effective?

OBJECTIVE: We performed a comparative study of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy (URS). Our objective was to determine whether high-fidelity non-virtual reality (VR) models are as effective as the VR model in teaching flexible URS skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one train...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mishra, Shashikant, Sharma, Rajan, Kumar, Akhilesh, Ganatra, Pradeep, Sabnis, Ravindra B., Desai, Mahesh R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263210/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22279308
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.91431
_version_ 1782221831872184320
author Mishra, Shashikant
Sharma, Rajan
Kumar, Akhilesh
Ganatra, Pradeep
Sabnis, Ravindra B.
Desai, Mahesh R.
author_facet Mishra, Shashikant
Sharma, Rajan
Kumar, Akhilesh
Ganatra, Pradeep
Sabnis, Ravindra B.
Desai, Mahesh R.
author_sort Mishra, Shashikant
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We performed a comparative study of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy (URS). Our objective was to determine whether high-fidelity non-virtual reality (VR) models are as effective as the VR model in teaching flexible URS skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one trained urologists without clinical experience of flexible URS underwent dry lab simulation practice. After a warm-up period of 2 h, tasks were performed on a high-fidelity non-VR (Uro-scopic Trainer™; Endo-Urologie-Modell™) and a high-fidelity VR model (URO Mentor™). The participants were divided equally into three batches with rotation on each of the three stations for 30 min. Performance of the trainees was evaluated by an expert ureteroscopist using pass rating and global rating score (GRS). The participants rated a face validity questionnaire at the end of each session. RESULTS: The GRS improved statistically at evaluation performed after second rotation (P<0.001 for batches 1, 2 and 3). Pass ratings also improved significantly for all training models when the third and first rotations were compared (P<0.05). The batch that was trained on the VR-based model had more improvement on pass ratings on second rotation but could not achieve statistical significance. Most of the realistic domains were higher for a VR model as compared with the non-VR model, except the realism of the flexible endoscope. CONCLUSIONS: All the models used for training flexible URS were effective in increasing the GRS and pass ratings irrespective of the VR status.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3263210
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32632102012-01-25 Comparative performance of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: Are all models effective? Mishra, Shashikant Sharma, Rajan Kumar, Akhilesh Ganatra, Pradeep Sabnis, Ravindra B. Desai, Mahesh R. Indian J Urol Original Article OBJECTIVE: We performed a comparative study of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy (URS). Our objective was to determine whether high-fidelity non-virtual reality (VR) models are as effective as the VR model in teaching flexible URS skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one trained urologists without clinical experience of flexible URS underwent dry lab simulation practice. After a warm-up period of 2 h, tasks were performed on a high-fidelity non-VR (Uro-scopic Trainer™; Endo-Urologie-Modell™) and a high-fidelity VR model (URO Mentor™). The participants were divided equally into three batches with rotation on each of the three stations for 30 min. Performance of the trainees was evaluated by an expert ureteroscopist using pass rating and global rating score (GRS). The participants rated a face validity questionnaire at the end of each session. RESULTS: The GRS improved statistically at evaluation performed after second rotation (P<0.001 for batches 1, 2 and 3). Pass ratings also improved significantly for all training models when the third and first rotations were compared (P<0.05). The batch that was trained on the VR-based model had more improvement on pass ratings on second rotation but could not achieve statistical significance. Most of the realistic domains were higher for a VR model as compared with the non-VR model, except the realism of the flexible endoscope. CONCLUSIONS: All the models used for training flexible URS were effective in increasing the GRS and pass ratings irrespective of the VR status. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2011 /pmc/articles/PMC3263210/ /pubmed/22279308 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.91431 Text en Copyright: © Indian Journal of Urology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Mishra, Shashikant
Sharma, Rajan
Kumar, Akhilesh
Ganatra, Pradeep
Sabnis, Ravindra B.
Desai, Mahesh R.
Comparative performance of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: Are all models effective?
title Comparative performance of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: Are all models effective?
title_full Comparative performance of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: Are all models effective?
title_fullStr Comparative performance of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: Are all models effective?
title_full_unstemmed Comparative performance of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: Are all models effective?
title_short Comparative performance of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: Are all models effective?
title_sort comparative performance of high-fidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: are all models effective?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263210/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22279308
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.91431
work_keys_str_mv AT mishrashashikant comparativeperformanceofhighfidelitytrainingmodelsforflexibleureteroscopyareallmodelseffective
AT sharmarajan comparativeperformanceofhighfidelitytrainingmodelsforflexibleureteroscopyareallmodelseffective
AT kumarakhilesh comparativeperformanceofhighfidelitytrainingmodelsforflexibleureteroscopyareallmodelseffective
AT ganatrapradeep comparativeperformanceofhighfidelitytrainingmodelsforflexibleureteroscopyareallmodelseffective
AT sabnisravindrab comparativeperformanceofhighfidelitytrainingmodelsforflexibleureteroscopyareallmodelseffective
AT desaimaheshr comparativeperformanceofhighfidelitytrainingmodelsforflexibleureteroscopyareallmodelseffective