PURPOSE: To assess the construct validity of the Procedicus Virtual Interventional Simulator Trainer (Procedicus-VIST) and its use as a training tool. METHODS: Two groups comprised of 8 interventional radiologists (experts) and 8 medical students (novices) performed 6 renal artery procedures on the Procedicus-VIST. All participants received a 45-minute standardized didactic introduction before starting the simulations. The first 2-hour session was used for familiarization, whereas the second session constituted the testing period. During each procedure, objective performance data including procedure time, fluoroscopic time, contrast, cine loops, lesion coverage, tool:lesion ratio, placement accuracy, and residual stenosis were recorded by the Procedicus-VIST software. Exit surveys were completed to document demographic and subjective data. A visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 was used to rate total, guidewire, catheter, balloon, stent, fluoroscopic, and joystick realism, as well as the simulator's pedagogic value. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in performances between the 2 groups in residual stenosis, placement accuracy, procedure time, number of cine loops, lesion coverage, or tool:lesion ratio. The total fluoroscopic use was greater for the novice group (p < 0.01). Experts rated 6 of the 8 subjective parameters favorably, whereas the novice group approved of 7. CONCLUSIONS: Using this study design, the quantitative metrics recorded by the Procedicus-VIST software failed to stratify performances based upon experience level, with the exception of fluoroscopic use. Investigation comparing standard training to virtual reality training should be performed to assess any differences in actual performance in the catheterization laboratory.
PURPOSE: To assess the construct validity of the Procedicus Virtual Interventional Simulator Trainer (Procedicus-VIST) and its use as a training tool. METHODS: Two groups comprised of 8 interventional radiologists (experts) and 8 medical students (novices) performed 6 renal artery procedures on the Procedicus-VIST. All participants received a 45-minute standardized didactic introduction before starting the simulations. The first 2-hour session was used for familiarization, whereas the second session constituted the testing period. During each procedure, objective performance data including procedure time, fluoroscopic time, contrast, cine loops, lesion coverage, tool:lesion ratio, placement accuracy, and residual stenosis were recorded by the Procedicus-VIST software. Exit surveys were completed to document demographic and subjective data. A visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 was used to rate total, guidewire, catheter, balloon, stent, fluoroscopic, and joystick realism, as well as the simulator's pedagogic value. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in performances between the 2 groups in residual stenosis, placement accuracy, procedure time, number of cine loops, lesion coverage, or tool:lesion ratio. The total fluoroscopic use was greater for the novice group (p < 0.01). Experts rated 6 of the 8 subjective parameters favorably, whereas the novice group approved of 7. CONCLUSIONS: Using this study design, the quantitative metrics recorded by the Procedicus-VIST software failed to stratify performances based upon experience level, with the exception of fluoroscopic use. Investigation comparing standard training to virtual reality training should be performed to assess any differences in actual performance in the catheterization laboratory.
Authors: S J Johnson; C M Hunt; H M Woolnough; M Crawshaw; C Kilkenny; D A Gould; A England; A Sinha; P F Villard Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-02-08 Impact factor: 3.039