PURPOSE: The percutaneous renal access (PRA) is the most critical step of percutaneous renal surgery (PRS). For the training of PRA in the lab, a novel non-biological bench model was developed and set for validation test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experts in PRS (> 60 cases) and novices were included to perform fluoroscopy guided PRA on the model. Overall time, X-ray exposure time and puncture attempts were recorded to establish construct validity. After accomplishment, the experts rated the model using a standardized questionnaire for face and content validity based on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting very bad and 5 as excellent. Baseline and post-training data of novices were analyzed for skill acquisition. RESULTS: 9 experts and 30 novices were finally included. The overall appraisal was 4 by the experts, and consensus of all experts was reached for the model as an excellent training tool. Significant difference between experts and novices was detected with the experts using less total time 183.11 ± 29.40 vs. 278.00 ± 50.30 seconds (P < 0.001), shorter X-ray exposure time 109.22 ± 19.93 vs. 183.13 ± 38.83 seconds (P < 0.001), and fewer attempts 1.28 ± 0.44 vs. 2.35 ± 0.65 (P < 0.001). After training, the novices demonstrated significant skill improvement in total and fluoroscopy time, and number of attempts (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our non-biological model provides a new method for PRA training. The face, content and construct validity were demonstrated. This model allows contact with PRA skills and could be applied to the first step in the learning curve.
PURPOSE: The percutaneous renal access (PRA) is the most critical step of percutaneous renal surgery (PRS). For the training of PRA in the lab, a novel non-biological bench model was developed and set for validation test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experts in PRS (> 60 cases) and novices were included to perform fluoroscopy guided PRA on the model. Overall time, X-ray exposure time and puncture attempts were recorded to establish construct validity. After accomplishment, the experts rated the model using a standardized questionnaire for face and content validity based on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting very bad and 5 as excellent. Baseline and post-training data of novices were analyzed for skill acquisition. RESULTS: 9 experts and 30 novices were finally included. The overall appraisal was 4 by the experts, and consensus of all experts was reached for the model as an excellent training tool. Significant difference between experts and novices was detected with the experts using less total time 183.11 ± 29.40 vs. 278.00 ± 50.30 seconds (P < 0.001), shorter X-ray exposure time 109.22 ± 19.93 vs. 183.13 ± 38.83 seconds (P < 0.001), and fewer attempts 1.28 ± 0.44 vs. 2.35 ± 0.65 (P < 0.001). After training, the novices demonstrated significant skill improvement in total and fluoroscopy time, and number of attempts (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our non-biological model provides a new method for PRA training. The face, content and construct validity were demonstrated. This model allows contact with PRA skills and could be applied to the first step in the learning curve.