| Literature DB >> 26609446 |
Panagiotis Kallidonis1, Iason Kyriazis1, Marinos Vasilas1, Vasilis Panagopoulos1, Ioannis Georgiopoulos1, Mehmet Ozsoy2, Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg3, Christian Seitz2, Evangelos Liatsikos1.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Objectives should be describe a modular training scheme (MTS) which aims to provide training in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) and ensure the safety of the patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two trainees with no experience in PCNL attended the MTS under the supervision of an experienced mentor. The MTS included five modules, comprising an initial animal laboratory course (using pigs), to acquire basic skills (Module 1), and Modules 2-5 included making the puncture, tract dilatation, single-stone and large-stone management in clinical cases, respectively. Each participant progressed from one module to the next under constant mentoring and evaluation by the mentor. When the trainees completed the MTS they proceeded to perform 60 PCNL procedures independently while the mentor performed 25 for comparison purposes. A global rating scale was used for the objective evaluation of the trainees. Peri-operative variables were recorded and statistically compared as appropriate. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.Entities:
Keywords: GRS, global rating scale; MTS, modular training scheme; Modular; PCNL, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy; Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy; Renal calculi; Training
Year: 2015 PMID: 26609446 PMCID: PMC4656800 DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2015.07.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arab J Urol ISSN: 2090-598X
Endoscopic experience of the residents at the beginning of the MTS, and the number of cases required for each trainee in every module to achieve competence for the next module.
| Experience | Trainee | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |
| Previous endoscopic | 40 URS (surgeon) | 5 URS (surgeon) |
| 30 PCNL (assistant) | 10 PCNL (assistant) | |
| 1 | 5 accesses in 1 pig | 9 accesses in 2 pigs |
| 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 4 | 4 | 6 |
| 5 | 6 | 7 |
URS, ureteroscopy.
The GRS for PCNL used in the evaluation of the trainees.
| Task | Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| Identify anatomy | No knowledge | Identified most landmarks | Identified all landmarks |
| Plan needle puncture | Targeting incorrect calyx or wrong angle | Eventually targets correct calyx at appropriate angle | Correct calyx targeted |
| Needle at appropriate angle. | |||
| Multiple needle passes | A few needle passes | Minimum needle passes | |
| Use of instruments | Difficulty coordinating access needle and guidewire | Able to use access needle and guidewire although awkward at times | Able to use access needle and guidewire smoothly |
| Efficacy in dilating the tract | Failure to dilate the tract | Dilation was achieved but not with the optimal technical efficacy and control | Dilation under efficient control and technique |
| Inappropriate use of dilation device and wires | |||
| Ability to perform tasks | Frequently stopped or needed advice/assistance from mentor | Performed procedure with little advice/assistance from mentor | Performed procedure with no advice/assistance from mentor |
| Overall performance | Poor | Average | Excellent |
Intermediate scores 2 and 4 are not shown.
The number of needle passes was defined as: minimum, one puncture per access; few, 2–3 punctures/access; multiple, >3 punctures/access.
GRS scores and errors at each module for both trainees (T1 and T2).
| Task | Module | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
| T1 | T2 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T2 | |
| Identify anatomy | 4 | 3.89 | 5 | 4.6 | 4.67 | 4.5 | 4.75 | 4.83 | 5 | 5 |
| Needle puncture | 4.2 | 3.67 | 4.67 | 4 | 4.67 | 4.5 | 4.75 | 4.67 | 4 | 4.14 |
| Instrument use | 4 | 3.78 | 4.33 | 4.3 | 4.33 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.17 | 3.57 |
| Dilatation | 4.2 | 3.78 | – | – | 3.67 | 3.5 | 4.25 | 4 | 3.5 | 3.57 |
| Ability for tasks | 4 | 3.56 | 4 | 3.8 | 5 | 4.75 | 4.75 | 4.83 | 4.67 | 4.28 |
| Overall performance | 3.6 | 3.45 | 4.33 | 4 | 4.67 | 4.5 | 4.75 | 4.67 | 4.33 | 4.57 |
| 0.69 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.21 | 0.001 | ||||||
| Needle punctures | 8/5 | 15/9 | 3/3 | 6/5 | 4/3 | 4/4 | 5/4 | 8/6 | 16/6 | 20/7 |
| Rib collisions | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Blood vessel injuries | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Collecting system injury | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Infundibular punctures | 4 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
The Kruskal–Wallis test was used for the statistical analysis.
The total number of punctures per number of accesses in the given pigs.
More than one puncture in each case, as multiple punctures were made in these cases.
Pre-operative data of the patients operated independently by the trainees and the mentor, and the complications encountered.
| Mean (range), mean (SD) or | Trainee | Mentor | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Case number | 1–15 | 16–30 | 31–45 | 46–60 | 1–15 | 16–30 | 31–45 | 46–60 | 25 |
| Age (years) | 48.3 | 55.3 | 57.9 | 48.6 | 57.8 | 55.3 | 54.6 | 61.5 | 51.2 |
| | (34–69) | (37–75) | (39–78) | (33–70) | (36–75) | (37–74) | (36–69) | (37–73) | (33–77) |
| Stone size (cm) | 3.19 | 2.76 | 3.13 | 2.93 | 2.86 | 3.27 | 3.25 | 3.21 | 3.21 |
| | (2.2–3.9) | (2–3.8) | (2.0–4.0) | (2.1–3.9) | (2.2–3.8) | (2.0–4.0) | (2.4–4.0) | (2.3–3.9) | (2–3.9) |
| Stone location | |||||||||
| Pelvis | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Lower pole | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Middle pole | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Upper pole | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Staghorn | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Previous renal surgery | 2 SWL | 1 PCNL | 1 × OP | 1 URS | 2 PCNL | 1 URS | 2 SWL | 1 × EP | 2 SWL |
| 2 URS | 1 SWL | 1 SWL | 1 SWL | 3 URS | |||||
| Concomitant urinary tract conditions | – | 1 PUJO | – | – | 1 × US | 1 × PUJO | – | 1 PUJO Urothelial tumour | 1 |
| Duration (min) | |||||||||
| Operative | 66.5 (13.7) | 56.6 (12.1) | 49.8 (13.1) | 46.6 (14.4) | 70.2 (11.2) | 55.3 (12.2) | 43.1 (12.8) | 46.3 (13.4) | 43.1 (13.2) |
| Fluoroscopy | 2.5 (0.3) | 1.9 (0.3) | 1.8 (0.4) | 1.7 (0.3) | 2.4 (0.3) | 2.1 (0.3) | 1.7 (0.3) | 1.8 (0.2) | 1.7 (0.3) |
| Additional procedures | – | 1 EP | – | – | – | 1 EP | – | 1 EP | – |
| Haemoglobin decrease, g/dL | 1.86 (0.67) | 1.68 (0.66) | 1.78 (0.48) | 1.88 (0.54) | 1.77 (0.58) | 1.68 (0.59) | 1.99 (0.98) | 1.66 (0.47) | 1.71 (0.8) |
| Stone-free, | 11 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 22 |
| Transfusion, | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Hospital stay (days) | 3.3 (3–7) | 3.1 (3–5) | 3.1 (3–5) | 3.2 (3–6) | 3.1 (3–5) | 3.3 (3–8) | 3.3 (3–5) | 3.3 (3–7) | 3.3 (3–7) |
| Intra-operative | 1 IT/cons | 1 PWT/cons | – | 1 IT-B/cons | 1 PWT/cons, thoracic drainage placement | 1 P-H/abort/removal of needle, pressure, select other site | 1 puncture B | 1 SB at 1 IP/cons | 1 IP |
| 1 IT/cons | |||||||||
| Postoperative | 1 PA | 1 Re-ad high fever/AAC | 1 F/AAC | 1 PB | – | 1 F/AAC | 1 sig | – | 1 PB |
| (Clavien grade) | Emb + Tr/AAC | thru | RPH + symptoms (pain)/cons | thru | |||||
| (II) | Malecot/ | (II) | Malecot/Tr (II) | ||||||
| (IIIa) | (II) | Tr (II) | |||||||
| Tr (II) | 1 F/AAC (II) | ||||||||
The Kruskal–Wallis test was used for the statistical analysis.
SWL, shock-wave lithotripsy; URS, ureteroscopy; OP, open pyeloplasty; EP, endopyelotomy; PUJO, pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction; US, urethral stricture; IT, infundibular tear; B, bleeding; PWT, pelvic wall tear; P-H, pneumothorax/hydrothorax; SB, significant bleeding; IP, infundibular puncture; /cons, conservative; PA, pseudoaneurysm; Re-ad, re-admission of patient; AAC, antibiotics according to culture; Emb, embolisation; Tr, transfusion; RPH, retroperitoneal haematoma; F, postop. fever.
Resection and follow-up.
Of large parenchymal vessel.