Cargando…

Simulation Training in Neuroangiography—Validation and Effectiveness

PURPOSE: Simulators are increasingly used in the training of endovascular procedures; however, for the use of the Mentice vascular interventional system trainer (VIST) simulator in neuroradiology, the validity of the method has not yet been proven. The study was carried out to test the construct val...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kreiser, Kornelia, Ströber, Lea, Gehling, Kim G., Schneider, Frederick, Kohlbecher, Stefan, Schulz, Christian M., Zimmer, Claus, Kirschke, Jan S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8211587/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32303789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00062-020-00902-5
_version_ 1783709495402168320
author Kreiser, Kornelia
Ströber, Lea
Gehling, Kim G.
Schneider, Frederick
Kohlbecher, Stefan
Schulz, Christian M.
Zimmer, Claus
Kirschke, Jan S.
author_facet Kreiser, Kornelia
Ströber, Lea
Gehling, Kim G.
Schneider, Frederick
Kohlbecher, Stefan
Schulz, Christian M.
Zimmer, Claus
Kirschke, Jan S.
author_sort Kreiser, Kornelia
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Simulators are increasingly used in the training of endovascular procedures; however, for the use of the Mentice vascular interventional system trainer (VIST) simulator in neuroradiology, the validity of the method has not yet been proven. The study was carried out to test the construct validity of such a simulator by demonstrating differences between beginner and expert neurointerventionalists and to evaluate whether a training effect can be demonstrated in repeated cases for different levels of experience. METHODS: In this study 4 experts and 6 beginners performed 10 diagnostic angiographies on the VIST simulator (Mentice AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). Of the cases four were non-recurring, whereas three were repeated once and ten subjects performed all tasks. Additionally, another expert performed only five non-recurring cases. The simulator recorded total time, fluoroscopy time, amount of contrast medium and number of material changes. Furthermore, gaze direction and heart rate were recorded, and subjects completed a questionnaire on workload. RESULTS: Beginners and experts showed significant differences in total duration time, fluoroscopy time and amount of contrast agent (all p < 0.05). Gaze direction, dwell time and heart rate were similar between both groups. Only beginners improved during training with respect to total duration time, fluoroscopy time and amount of contrast agent. If a case was previously known to them, the total duration and fluoroscopy time were significantly shortened (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated both the construct validity of a diagnostic neuroangiography simulator as well as a significant training effect for beginners. Therefore, in particular beginner neurointerventionalists should use such simulation tools more extensively in their initial training.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8211587
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82115872021-07-01 Simulation Training in Neuroangiography—Validation and Effectiveness Kreiser, Kornelia Ströber, Lea Gehling, Kim G. Schneider, Frederick Kohlbecher, Stefan Schulz, Christian M. Zimmer, Claus Kirschke, Jan S. Clin Neuroradiol Original Article PURPOSE: Simulators are increasingly used in the training of endovascular procedures; however, for the use of the Mentice vascular interventional system trainer (VIST) simulator in neuroradiology, the validity of the method has not yet been proven. The study was carried out to test the construct validity of such a simulator by demonstrating differences between beginner and expert neurointerventionalists and to evaluate whether a training effect can be demonstrated in repeated cases for different levels of experience. METHODS: In this study 4 experts and 6 beginners performed 10 diagnostic angiographies on the VIST simulator (Mentice AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). Of the cases four were non-recurring, whereas three were repeated once and ten subjects performed all tasks. Additionally, another expert performed only five non-recurring cases. The simulator recorded total time, fluoroscopy time, amount of contrast medium and number of material changes. Furthermore, gaze direction and heart rate were recorded, and subjects completed a questionnaire on workload. RESULTS: Beginners and experts showed significant differences in total duration time, fluoroscopy time and amount of contrast agent (all p < 0.05). Gaze direction, dwell time and heart rate were similar between both groups. Only beginners improved during training with respect to total duration time, fluoroscopy time and amount of contrast agent. If a case was previously known to them, the total duration and fluoroscopy time were significantly shortened (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated both the construct validity of a diagnostic neuroangiography simulator as well as a significant training effect for beginners. Therefore, in particular beginner neurointerventionalists should use such simulation tools more extensively in their initial training. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-04-17 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8211587/ /pubmed/32303789 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00062-020-00902-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Kreiser, Kornelia
Ströber, Lea
Gehling, Kim G.
Schneider, Frederick
Kohlbecher, Stefan
Schulz, Christian M.
Zimmer, Claus
Kirschke, Jan S.
Simulation Training in Neuroangiography—Validation and Effectiveness
title Simulation Training in Neuroangiography—Validation and Effectiveness
title_full Simulation Training in Neuroangiography—Validation and Effectiveness
title_fullStr Simulation Training in Neuroangiography—Validation and Effectiveness
title_full_unstemmed Simulation Training in Neuroangiography—Validation and Effectiveness
title_short Simulation Training in Neuroangiography—Validation and Effectiveness
title_sort simulation training in neuroangiography—validation and effectiveness
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8211587/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32303789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00062-020-00902-5
work_keys_str_mv AT kreiserkornelia simulationtraininginneuroangiographyvalidationandeffectiveness
AT stroberlea simulationtraininginneuroangiographyvalidationandeffectiveness
AT gehlingkimg simulationtraininginneuroangiographyvalidationandeffectiveness
AT schneiderfrederick simulationtraininginneuroangiographyvalidationandeffectiveness
AT kohlbecherstefan simulationtraininginneuroangiographyvalidationandeffectiveness
AT schulzchristianm simulationtraininginneuroangiographyvalidationandeffectiveness
AT zimmerclaus simulationtraininginneuroangiographyvalidationandeffectiveness
AT kirschkejans simulationtraininginneuroangiographyvalidationandeffectiveness