Literature DB >> 18372149

Simulation-based endovascular skills assessment: the future of credentialing?

Maureen M Tedesco1, Jimmy J Pak, E John Harris, Thomas M Krummel, Ronald L Dalman, Jason T Lee.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Simulator-based endovascular skills training measurably improves performance in catheter-based image-guided interventions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether structured global performance assessment during endovascular simulation correlated well with trainee-reported procedural skill and prior experience level.
METHODS: Fourth-year and fifth-year general surgery residents interviewing for vascular fellowship training provided detailed information regarding prior open vascular and endovascular operative experience. The pretest questionnaire responses were used to separate subjects into low (<20 cases) and moderate (20 to 100) endovascular experience groups. Subjects were then asked to perform a renal angioplasty/stent procedure on the Procedicus Vascular Intervention System Trainer (VIST) endovascular simulator (Mentice Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden). The subjects' performance was supervised and evaluated by a blinded expert interventionalist using a structured global assessment scale based on angiography setup, target vessel catheterization, and the interventional procedure. Objective measures determined by the simulator were also collected for each subject. A postsimulation questionnaire was administered to determine the subjects' self-assessment of their performance.
RESULTS: Seventeen surgical residents from 15 training programs completed questionnaires before and after the exercise and performed a renal angioplasty/stent procedure on the endovascular simulator. The beginner group (n = 8) reported prior experience of a median of eight endovascular cases (interquartile range [IQR], 6.5-17.8; range, 4-20), and intermediate group (n = 9) had previously completed a median of 42 cases (IQR, 31-44; range, 25-89, P = .01). The two groups had similar prior open vascular experience (79 cases vs 75, P = .60). The mean score on the structured global assessment scale for the low experience group was 2.68 of 5.0 possible compared with 3.60 for the intermediate group (P = .03). Scores for subcategories of the global assessment score for target vessel catheterization (P = .02) and the interventional procedure (P = .05) contributed more to the differentiation between the two experience groups. Total procedure time, fluoroscopy time, average contrast used, percentage of lesion covered by the stent, placement accuracy, residual stenosis rates, and number of cine loops utilized were similar between the two groups (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: Structured endovascular skills assessment correlates well with prior procedural experience within a high-fidelity simulation environment. In addition to improving endovascular training, simulators may prove useful in determining procedural competency and credentialing standards for endovascular surgeons.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18372149     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.01.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  15 in total

1.  The changing face of health care education: a new surgical simulation center at Baylor University Medical Center.

Authors:  Kristina Stillsmoking; Ronald C Jones
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2012-01

2.  Carotid vasculature modeling from patient CT angiography studies for interventional procedures simulation.

Authors:  M Freiman; L Joskowicz; N Broide; M Natanzon; E Nammer; O Shilon; L Weizman; J Sosna
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Using simulation for interventional radiology training.

Authors:  D Gould
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  The role of simulation in neurosurgery.

Authors:  Roberta Rehder; Muhammad Abd-El-Barr; Kristopher Hooten; Peter Weinstock; Joseph R Madsen; Alan R Cohen
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 5.  Are general surgeons able to accurately self-assess their level of technical skills?

Authors:  C Rizan; J Ansell; T W Tilston; N Warren; J Torkington
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 6.  Surgical robotics beyond enhanced dexterity instrumentation: a survey of machine learning techniques and their role in intelligent and autonomous surgical actions.

Authors:  Yohannes Kassahun; Bingbin Yu; Abraham Temesgen Tibebu; Danail Stoyanov; Stamatia Giannarou; Jan Hendrik Metzen; Emmanuel Vander Poorten
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 7.  Procedural virtual reality simulation in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Cecilie Våpenstad; Sonja N Buzink
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Volume, outcome, and policy.

Authors:  Mark A Hlatky
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 9.  Self versus external assessment for technical tasks in surgery: a narrative review.

Authors:  Boris Zevin
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2012-12

10.  Simultaneous hybrid revascularization for symptomatic lower extremity arterial occlusive disease.

Authors:  Jin Hyun Joh; Sun-Hyung Joo; Ho-Chul Park
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2013-08-17       Impact factor: 2.447

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.