Literature DB >> 21304005

Virtual reality, ultrasound-guided liver biopsy simulator: development and performance discrimination.

S J Johnson1, C M Hunt, H M Woolnough, M Crawshaw, C Kilkenny, D A Gould, A England, A Sinha, P F Villard.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article was to identify and prospectively investigate simulated ultrasound-guided targeted liver biopsy performance metrics as differentiators between levels of expertise in interventional radiology.
METHODS: Task analysis produced detailed procedural step documentation allowing identification of critical procedure steps and performance metrics for use in a virtual reality ultrasound-guided targeted liver biopsy procedure. Consultant (n=14; male=11, female=3) and trainee (n=26; male=19, female=7) scores on the performance metrics were compared. Ethical approval was granted by the Liverpool Research Ethics Committee (UK). Independent t-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) investigated differences between groups.
RESULTS: Independent t-tests revealed significant differences between trainees and consultants on three performance metrics: targeting, p=0.018, t=-2.487 (-2.040 to -0.207); probe usage time, p = 0.040, t=2.132 (11.064 to 427.983); mean needle length in beam, p=0.029, t=-2.272 (-0.028 to -0.002). ANOVA reported significant differences across years of experience (0-1, 1-2, 3+ years) on seven performance metrics: no-go area touched, p=0.012; targeting, p=0.025; length of session, p=0.024; probe usage time, p=0.025; total needle distance moved, p=0.038; number of skin contacts, p<0.001; total time in no-go area, p=0.008. More experienced participants consistently received better performance scores on all 19 performance metrics.
CONCLUSION: It is possible to measure and monitor performance using simulation, with performance metrics providing feedback on skill level and differentiating levels of expertise. However, a transfer of training study is required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21304005      PMCID: PMC3479890          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/47436030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  16 in total

1.  Using cognitive task analysis to facilitate collaboration in development of simulator to accelerate surgical training.

Authors:  Tiffany Grunwald; Dick Clark; Scott S Fisher; Margaret McLaughlin; Shrikanth Narayanan; Diane Piepol
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2004

2.  The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room.

Authors:  M Bridges; D L Diamond
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Approval of virtual reality training for carotid stenting: what this means for procedural-based medicine.

Authors:  Anthony G Gallagher; Christopher U Cates
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Analysis of simulated angiographic procedures. Part 2: extracting efficiency data from audio and video recordings.

Authors:  James R Duncan; Benjamin Kline; Craig B Glaiberman
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.464

5.  Simulation devices in interventional radiology: validation pending.

Authors:  Derek A Gould; Jim A Reekers; David O Kessel; Nick C Chalmers; Marc Sapoval; Aalpen A Patel; Gary J Becker; Mick J Lee; Luc Stockx
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.464

6.  Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): a practitioner's toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands.

Authors:  L G Militello; R J Hutton
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.778

7.  Surgical training: an objective assessment of recent changes for a single health board.

Authors:  T J Crofts; J M Griffiths; S Sharma; J Wygrala; R J Aitken
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-03-22

8.  Virtual reality simulation objectively differentiates level of carotid stent experience in experienced interventionalists.

Authors:  Isabelle Van Herzeele; Rajesh Aggarwal; Andrew Choong; Robert Brightwell; Frank E Vermassen; Nicholas J Cheshire
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.268

9.  Cognitive task analysis for teaching technical skills in an inanimate surgical skills laboratory.

Authors:  George C Velmahos; Konstantinos G Toutouzas; Lelan F Sillin; Linda Chan; Richard E Clark; Demetrios Theodorou; Fredric Maupin
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  An evaluation of a virtual reality airway simulator.

Authors:  Richard Rowe; Ronald A Cohen
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 5.108

View more
  4 in total

1.  Interventional radiology virtual simulator for liver biopsy.

Authors:  P F Villard; F P Vidal; L ap Cenydd; R Holbrey; S Pisharody; S Johnson; A Bulpitt; N W John; F Bello; D Gould
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Hybrid simulation using mixed reality for interventional ultrasound imaging training.

Authors:  C Freschi; S Parrini; N Dinelli; M Ferrari; V Ferrari
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Systematic review of three-dimensional printing for simulation training of interventional radiology trainees.

Authors:  Chase Tenewitz; Rebecca T Le; Mauricio Hernandez; Saif Baig; Travis E Meyer
Journal:  3D Print Med       Date:  2021-04-21

4.  Interventional radiology training: where will technology take us?

Authors:  Meghavi Mashar; Andrew Nanapragasam; Philip Haslam
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2019-08-16
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.