| Literature DB >> 35829740 |
Uta Hanning1, Matthias Bechstein2, Johannes Kaesmacher3, Grégoire Boulouis4, René Chapot5, Tommy Andersson6,7, Edoardo Boccardi8, Marios Psychogios9, Christophe Cognard10, Marta de Dios Lascuevas11, Marta Rodrigues12, Isabel Rodriguez Caamaño13, Sergios Gargalas14, Davide Simonato15, Vedran Zupancic16, Cornelia Daller17, Lukas Meyer2, Gabriel Broocks2, Helena Guerreiro2, Jens Fiehler2, Mario Martínez-Galdamez18, Vladimir Kalousek16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote access of trainees to training centers via video streaming (tele-observership, e‑fellowship) emerges as an alternative to acquire knowledge in endovascular interventions. Situational awareness is a summary term that is also used in surgical procedures for perceiving and understanding the situation and projecting what will happen next. A high situational awareness would serve as prerequisite for meaningful learning success during tele-observerships. We hypothesized that live perception of the angiographical procedures using streaming technology is feasible and sufficient to gain useful situational awareness of the procedure.Entities:
Keywords: Neuroendovascular training; Stroke; Telemedicine; Teleobservership; Teleproctoring
Year: 2022 PMID: 35829740 PMCID: PMC9277595 DOI: 10.1007/s00062-022-01192-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Neuroradiol ISSN: 1869-1439 Impact factor: 3.156
Proposed curriculum of a 6-month telestream fellowship for trainee interventionalists
| Type of intervention | Required minimum number of observed cases |
|---|---|
| Acute ischemic stroke (recanalization) | 10 |
| Intracranial aneurysm (embolization, flow diversion etc.) | 10 |
| Extracranial/intracranial vessel stenosis (angioplasty, stenting) | 2 |
| Vascular malformations (AVM, dAVF embolization) | Dependent on case frequency at assigned neurovascular center |
AVM arteriovenous malformation, dAVF dural arteriovenous fistula
Overview of evaluated telestreamed cases and procedures
| Cases ( | Procedures ( |
|---|---|
| Unruptured aneurysm (26) | Coil Embolization (2) |
| Balloon/Stent-assisted Coil Embolization (10) | |
| Flow Diversion (11) | |
| Intrasaccular Device (3) | |
| Ruptured aneurysm (8) | Coil Embolization (4) |
| Balloon‑/Stent-assisted Coil Embolization (2) | |
| Flow Diversion (2) | |
| Arteriovenous malformation (16) | Embolization (16) |
| Dural arteriovenous fistula (14) | Embolization (14) |
| Acute ischemic stroke (28) | Stent-Retriever (24) |
| Aspiration alone (1) | |
| Thrombectomy + Carotid Stent/Angioplasty (3) | |
| Carotid artery stenosis (5) | Carotid Stent/Angioplasty (5) |
| Other (5) | Vasospasm—Angioplasty (2) |
| Diagnostic Intracranial Angiogram (2) | |
| Spinal Angiogram (1) |
Cases (evaluated) n = 102
Fig. 1Understandability of the mentor’s descriptions and levels of situational awareness of the fellows. Data were assessed through a semiquantitative 5 level questionnaire with 1 = poor, 2 = low, 3 = medium, 4 = good and 5 = full (y-axis in a, b: absolute number of cases). a Reported levels of understanding of the mentors’s descriptions. b Reported levels of situational awareness for all cases. c The respective mean level (± standard deviation) of situational awareness per fellow
Fig. 2Evaluation of the learning progress through the e‑fellows after completion of the program. Y-axis: number of answers in the questionnaire. a Neurointerventional knowledge at different timepoints of the program. b Overall learning progress: Reported extent of improvement of neurointerventional knowledge through the fellowship (single answer only). c Reported area(s) of knowledge with particular improvement (multiple answers possible). d Specific cases with particular learning benefit (multiple answers possible)
Fig. 3Final course evaluation through the mentors. Use of a five level semiquantitative scale with 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “very much” in (c,d). a Questionnaire: “The telepresence of the e‑fellow affected the procedures…” b Periprocedural/intraprocedural communication. Questionnaire: “I was usually able to talk with the e‑fellow and provide procedural details…”. c Questionnaire: “Overall: is the method effective in teaching technical skills (device selection, handling of catheters, management of technical complications etc.)?” d Questionnaire: “Is the method effective in teaching clinical skills (e.g. patient selection, indication setting, selection of treatment modality, decision making during procedures, etc.)?”