Format

Send to

Choose Destination
World J Urol. 2018 Jul;36(7):1149-1155. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2219-5. Epub 2018 Feb 17.

Incorporation of the fluoroless C-Arm Trainer at the American Urological Association hands on training percutaneous renal access.

Author information

1
Department of Surgery, WWAMI Institute for Simulation in Healthcare (WISH), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
2
Department of Urology, Benha Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt.
3
The Smith Institute for Urology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
4
Department of Urology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
5
Department of Urology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
6
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
7
Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
8
Department of Surgery, WWAMI Institute for Simulation in Healthcare (WISH), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. rsweet@uw.edu.
9
Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. rsweet@uw.edu.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To assess for usefulness and validity evidence for incorporating the C-Arm Trainer (CAT) simulator into the annual AUA hands on course for training percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The course started with a didactic session followed by four stations for training the "bull's eye" technique using the CAT simulator. Each station included a pre-test, 30-min practice on the simulator, and post-test. All participants were assessed using a 4-item checklist. All participants were asked to fill in a qualitative self-assessment questionnaire after the pre- and the post-test, and respond to a course evaluation questionnaire and post-course survey.

RESULTS:

A total of 38 physicians, who attended the hands on course, voluntarily participated in the study. Only 21.1% had previous practice on PCNL simulators. Compared with the results of the checklist total score and the qualitative self-assessment questionnaire scores after the pre-test, there was significant improvement in the checklist total score (p < 0.001), temporal demands (p = 0.003), situational stress (p = 0.003, and performance (0.003) after the post-test. A total of 14 (36%) participants responded to the course evaluation questionnaire, 50% evaluated the course as excellent, 28.6% as very good, and 21.4% as good. Unfortunately, only five (13%) participants responded to the post-course survey, 4/5 implemented the new competencies and knowledge into their practice, and 3/5 have attempted to obtain fluoroscopic guided PCA without assistance.

CONCLUSION:

The CAT simulator was considered useful for training the percutaneous renal access procedure. There was significant improvement in the qualitative and quantitative assessment parameters after the post-test compared with the pre-test.

KEYWORDS:

Assessment; Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy; Skills; Training

PMID:
29455253
DOI:
10.1007/s00345-018-2219-5
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center