Cargando…

The use of a biological model for comparing two techniques of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous puncture: A randomised cross-over study

OBJECTIVES: To develop a new and inexpensive model for training in fluoroscopic puncture into the pelvicalyceal system, and to use this model to compare the learning curve of two fluoroscopic techniques, the ‘eye of the needle’ (EN) and triangulation techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the trial...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abdallah, Mohamed M., Salem, Shady M., Badreldin, Mohamed R., Gamaleldin, Ahmed A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4442951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26579251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2012.12.001
_version_ 1782372947748454400
author Abdallah, Mohamed M.
Salem, Shady M.
Badreldin, Mohamed R.
Gamaleldin, Ahmed A.
author_facet Abdallah, Mohamed M.
Salem, Shady M.
Badreldin, Mohamed R.
Gamaleldin, Ahmed A.
author_sort Abdallah, Mohamed M.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To develop a new and inexpensive model for training in fluoroscopic puncture into the pelvicalyceal system, and to use this model to compare the learning curve of two fluoroscopic techniques, the ‘eye of the needle’ (EN) and triangulation techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the trial we used a commercial plastic model (a shop-window mannequin) in which a bovine kidney, embedded in sponge with a spatial orientation similar to the human, was inserted into the model. The ureter of the animal kidney was connected to contrast fluid. Ten residents and interns were randomised into two groups; group A started the puncture using the EN technique, each member making five attempts, and then five attempts using the triangulation technique, and group B started with triangulation and then used the EN technique. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the techniques for the mean (SD) number of trials to make a correct puncture, at 2.68 (1.00) in the EN technique and 2.86 (1.05) in the triangulation technique, or for the duration of each trial, at 523 (189) s for the EN technique and 578 (175) s for the triangulation technique. The fluoroscopy time was less in the EN technique, at 113.9 (48.9) s than for the triangulation method, at 135.8 (42.4) (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The model was easy to construct and feasible for training. Both techniques had a similar learning curve, with higher fluoroscopy exposure for the triangulation technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4442951
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44429512015-11-17 The use of a biological model for comparing two techniques of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous puncture: A randomised cross-over study Abdallah, Mohamed M. Salem, Shady M. Badreldin, Mohamed R. Gamaleldin, Ahmed A. Arab J Urol Stones / Endourology Original Article OBJECTIVES: To develop a new and inexpensive model for training in fluoroscopic puncture into the pelvicalyceal system, and to use this model to compare the learning curve of two fluoroscopic techniques, the ‘eye of the needle’ (EN) and triangulation techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the trial we used a commercial plastic model (a shop-window mannequin) in which a bovine kidney, embedded in sponge with a spatial orientation similar to the human, was inserted into the model. The ureter of the animal kidney was connected to contrast fluid. Ten residents and interns were randomised into two groups; group A started the puncture using the EN technique, each member making five attempts, and then five attempts using the triangulation technique, and group B started with triangulation and then used the EN technique. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the techniques for the mean (SD) number of trials to make a correct puncture, at 2.68 (1.00) in the EN technique and 2.86 (1.05) in the triangulation technique, or for the duration of each trial, at 523 (189) s for the EN technique and 578 (175) s for the triangulation technique. The fluoroscopy time was less in the EN technique, at 113.9 (48.9) s than for the triangulation method, at 135.8 (42.4) (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The model was easy to construct and feasible for training. Both techniques had a similar learning curve, with higher fluoroscopy exposure for the triangulation technique. Elsevier 2013-03 2013-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4442951/ /pubmed/26579251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2012.12.001 Text en © 2012 Arab Association of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
spellingShingle Stones / Endourology Original Article
Abdallah, Mohamed M.
Salem, Shady M.
Badreldin, Mohamed R.
Gamaleldin, Ahmed A.
The use of a biological model for comparing two techniques of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous puncture: A randomised cross-over study
title The use of a biological model for comparing two techniques of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous puncture: A randomised cross-over study
title_full The use of a biological model for comparing two techniques of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous puncture: A randomised cross-over study
title_fullStr The use of a biological model for comparing two techniques of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous puncture: A randomised cross-over study
title_full_unstemmed The use of a biological model for comparing two techniques of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous puncture: A randomised cross-over study
title_short The use of a biological model for comparing two techniques of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous puncture: A randomised cross-over study
title_sort use of a biological model for comparing two techniques of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous puncture: a randomised cross-over study
topic Stones / Endourology Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4442951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26579251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2012.12.001
work_keys_str_mv AT abdallahmohamedm theuseofabiologicalmodelforcomparingtwotechniquesoffluoroscopyguidedpercutaneouspuncturearandomisedcrossoverstudy
AT salemshadym theuseofabiologicalmodelforcomparingtwotechniquesoffluoroscopyguidedpercutaneouspuncturearandomisedcrossoverstudy
AT badreldinmohamedr theuseofabiologicalmodelforcomparingtwotechniquesoffluoroscopyguidedpercutaneouspuncturearandomisedcrossoverstudy
AT gamaleldinahmeda theuseofabiologicalmodelforcomparingtwotechniquesoffluoroscopyguidedpercutaneouspuncturearandomisedcrossoverstudy
AT abdallahmohamedm useofabiologicalmodelforcomparingtwotechniquesoffluoroscopyguidedpercutaneouspuncturearandomisedcrossoverstudy
AT salemshadym useofabiologicalmodelforcomparingtwotechniquesoffluoroscopyguidedpercutaneouspuncturearandomisedcrossoverstudy
AT badreldinmohamedr useofabiologicalmodelforcomparingtwotechniquesoffluoroscopyguidedpercutaneouspuncturearandomisedcrossoverstudy
AT gamaleldinahmeda useofabiologicalmodelforcomparingtwotechniquesoffluoroscopyguidedpercutaneouspuncturearandomisedcrossoverstudy