1333 SURGICAL SKILLS LAB FOR PERCUTANEOUS RENAL ACCESS TRAINING: CONTENT VALIDATION COMPARISON BETWEEN LIVE PORCINE AND VR SIMULATION MODEL

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Surgical Education & Skills Assessment1 Apr 20101333 SURGICAL SKILLS LAB FOR PERCUTANEOUS RENAL ACCESS TRAINING: CONTENT VALIDATION COMPARISON BETWEEN LIVE PORCINE AND VR SIMULATION MODEL Jitendra Jagtap Jitendra JagtapJitendra Jagtap More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.939AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We incorporated the use of live porcine model and high fidelity computer based surgical simulator (PERC Mentor, Simbionix; Lod, Israel) in our skills lab for trainees interested in percutaneous renal access training. Content validity (realism and usefulness) of percutaneous renal access obtained on a live porcine model and PERC Mentor was compared to determine which of the two was a more appropriate and effective training model. METHODS A total of 24 experts performed a task of percutaneous renal access consecutively in a live porcine model and a PERC mentor. The porcine model access required general anesthesia and pre placement of ureteric catheter. The access was done with C-Arm flouro guidance with a 22 gauge skinny needle. Then a specific task of percutaneous renal puncture using the same case scenario was done on PERC Mentor. The experts rated a questionnaire based on a 5 points Likert′s scale, consisting of 10 and 3 items of realism and usefulness, respectively. RESULTS Out of the 10 items of realism, porcine model was rated superior to PERC Mentor in terms of overall realism(4.44 ± 0.7, 2.75 ± 0.8), movement of the kidney(4.96 ± 0.2, 3.15 ± 0.7), tactile feedback of perinephric space(3.64 ± 0.8, 1.4 ± 0.6), fluoroscopic realism (4.64 ± 0.5, 3.05± 0.7)and complications encountered(4.36 ± 0.5, 1.9 ± 0.8). It was inferior to PERC mentor in terms of orientation to the flank (2.36 ± 1.1, 4.3 ± 0.5),aspiration (3.2 ± 0.9, 4.2 ± 0.6), repetitive performance (3.52 ± 0.41, 4.85 ± 0.4) and organizational feasibility (3.04 ± 1.0, 4.85 ± 0.4), respectively. Tactile feedback of successful access (4.24 ± 0.7, 4.6 ± 0.5) was similar in both models. Out of the 3 items of usefulness, overall usefulness (4.6 ± 0.6, 4.65 ± 0.5) and use as a training tool (4.32 ± 0.5, 4.75 ± 0.4) was similar, however, porcine model was a much superior assessment tool (4.68± 0.5, 2.75 ± 0.9). CONCLUSIONS Both the models have relative advantages and disadvantages. The live porcine model is more realistic and assessment tool for percutaneous renal access. The specific advantage of PERC mentor is of repetitive tasking and easier set up feasibility. Overall usefulness is same for both the models. Vadodara, India© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e515 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jitendra Jagtap More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...