| Literature DB >> 35463012 |
Vito Torrano1,2, Francesco Zadek1, Dario Bugada3, Gianluca Cappelleri4, Gianluca Russo5, Giulia Tinti1, Antonio Giorgi1, Thomas Langer1,2, Roberto Fumagalli1,2.
Abstract
Background: Advances in regional anesthesia and pain management led to the advent of ultrasound-guided fascial plane blocks, which represent a new and promising route for the administration of local anesthetics. Both practical and theoretical knowledge of locoregional anesthesia are therefore becoming fundamental, requiring specific training programs for residents. Simulation-based medical education and training (SBET) has been recently applied to ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) with remarkable results. With this in mind, the anesthesia and intensive care residency program of the University of Milano-Bicocca organized a 4-h regional anesthesia training workshop with the BlockSim® (Accurate Srl, Cesena) simulator. Our study aimed to measure the residents' improvement in terms of reduction in time required to achieve an erector spinae plane (ESP) block.Entities:
Keywords: erector spinae plane (ESP) block; high fidelity simulation; improved proficiency; medical education; resident training; ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia
Year: 2022 PMID: 35463012 PMCID: PMC9024057 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.870372
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Figure 1(A) Hands-on session; (B) the BlockSim® simulator; (C) Onvision® Needle Tip Tracking; (D) Regional anesthesia mannequin simulation station.
Residents questionnaire self-evaluation.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Practical knowledge of peripheral regional anesthesia before the course— | 8 (15) | 23 (44) | 20 (38) | 1 (2) |
| Theoretical knowledge of ESP block before the course— | 11 (21) | 34 (65) | 7 (13) | 0 (0) |
This table represents the declared self-evaluation of the resident on their experience with regional anesthesia and ESP block before the course. ESP, erector spinae plane.
Performance of the first and second attempts at the BlockSim in the overall resident population.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correctly aimed at the target with the needle— | 30 (58) | 46 (88) | <0.001 |
| Number of punctures— | 3 [2, 7] | 2 [1, 4] | 0.002 |
| Time to target—s | 131 [83, 198] | 68 [27, 91] | <0.001 |
This table reports the performance before and after the 4-h course at the BlockSim in the overall resident population.
Performance at the first and second attempt at the BlockSim dividing the population for previous experience in performing ESP Block.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Correctly aimed at the target with the needle— | 6 (50) | 24 (60) | 0.54 |
| Number of punctures | 6 [3, 8] | 3 [2, 6] | 0.22 |
| Time to target—s | 150 [126, 227] | 120 [77, 188] | 0.08 |
|
| |||
| Correctly aimed at the target with the needle— | 11 (92) | 35 (88) | 0.58 |
| Number of punctures | 2 [1, 3] | 3 [1, 4] | 0.35 |
| Time to target—s | 50 [17, 92] | 72 [29, 91] | 0.28 |
This table reports the performance before and after the 4-h course at the BlockSim, dividing the population based on the declared experience. Group 1, residents who have performed at least 1 ESP block before the course; Group 2, the residents who have never performed an ESP block before the 4-h course.