Efraín Maldonado-Alcaraz1, Fernando González-Meza García2, Eduardo Alonso Serrano-Brambila1. 1. Servicio de Urología, Hospital de Especialidades, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, México, D.F., México. 2. Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Regional No. 25, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, México, D.F., México. Electronic address: urology_md@hotmail.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Training devices for percutaneous renal access are expensive, have hazardous biological materials, or radiation. Two devices were designed that eliminate some or all of these characteristics (ManiPERC and iPERC). OBJECTIVE: To compare the improvement in access time to the posterior lower calix with 2 inanimate models in a group of Urology residents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Quasi-experimental clinical trial with 16 Urology residents to compare the improvement over time of percutaneous renal access by training in 2 inanimate models (iPERC: simulated fluoroscopy and ManiPERC: real fluoroscopy). RESULTS: Subjects were assigned to one of 2 groups (iPERC and ManiPERC) and a video analysis of all of them was performed before and after 20 training sessions. Both groups improved their access time; with iPERC from 133.88±41.40 to 76±12.62s (p=0.006) and from 176.5±85.81 to 68.75 to 18.40s (p=0.007) with ManiPERC. Comparing iPERC versus ManiPERC there was no difference between them in improving access time (ANCOVA: Model F (1.13)=1.598, p=0.228). CONCLUSIONS: Both models are equivalent in improving skills; however, even though none of them generated bio-waste, the absence of radioactive emissions makes iPERC the more advantageous model.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Training devices for percutaneous renal access are expensive, have hazardous biological materials, or radiation. Two devices were designed that eliminate some or all of these characteristics (ManiPERC and iPERC). OBJECTIVE: To compare the improvement in access time to the posterior lower calix with 2 inanimate models in a group of Urology residents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Quasi-experimental clinical trial with 16 Urology residents to compare the improvement over time of percutaneous renal access by training in 2 inanimate models (iPERC: simulated fluoroscopy and ManiPERC: real fluoroscopy). RESULTS: Subjects were assigned to one of 2 groups (iPERC and ManiPERC) and a video analysis of all of them was performed before and after 20 training sessions. Both groups improved their access time; with iPERC from 133.88±41.40 to 76±12.62s (p=0.006) and from 176.5±85.81 to 68.75 to 18.40s (p=0.007) with ManiPERC. Comparing iPERC versus ManiPERC there was no difference between them in improving access time (ANCOVA: Model F (1.13)=1.598, p=0.228). CONCLUSIONS: Both models are equivalent in improving skills; however, even though none of them generated bio-waste, the absence of radioactive emissions makes iPERC the more advantageous model.
Authors: Giorgio Bozzini; Matteo Maltagliati; Lorenzo Berti; Riccardo Vismara; Francesco Sanguedolce; Alfonso Crisci; Gianfranco Beniamino Fiore; Alberto Redaelli; Antonio Luigi Pastore; Ali Gozen; Alberto Breda; Cesare Scoffone; Kamran Ahmed; Alexander Mueller; Stefano Gidaro; Evangelos Liatsikos Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2022-08-31