Assessment of central venous catheterization in a simulated model using a motion-tracking device: an experimental validation study.
Assessment of central venous catheterization in a simulated model using a motion-tracking device: an experimental validation study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13022-016-0025-6
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Montana, Rodrigo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Varas, Julian;Achurra, Pablo;Montana, Rodrigo
背景：中心静脉导管插入术（CVC）是许多医学专业的基本要求。在CVC模拟培训可能允许收购这一能力，但很少有报告建立了一个有效的方法学习和获取CVC程序技能。本研究的目的是验证使用的跟踪运动设备，帝国理工学院外科评估设备（ICSAD），通过比较它与验证的全球评级量表（GRS），以衡量CVC性能在一个模拟torthome.METHODS：高年级医学生，第一和去年的居民（PGY 1，LYR），和专家麻醉师进行了颈静脉CVC评估在一个模拟模型（Laerdal IV躯干）。使用了经验证的GRS，由ICSAD对技术技能和动作分析进行客观评估。采用Mann-Whitney检验和Kruskal-Wallis检验进行结构效度分析，采用斯皮尔曼相关系数分析ICSAD和GRS评分的同时效度。除LYR组与专家组相比（GRS组p=0.664，ICSAD组p=0.72）外，所有组之间使用ICSAD和GRS评分测量的总路径长度均存在显著差异。关于颈静脉CVC手术时间，LYR和experts快于PGY 1和MS（p
BACKGROUND: Central venous catheterization (CVC) is a basic requirement for many medical specialties. Simulated training in CVC may allow the acquisition of this competency but few reports have established a valid methodology for learning and acquiring procedural skills for CVC. This study aims to validate the use of a tracking motion device, the imperial college surgical assessment device (ICSAD), by comparing it with validated global rating scales (GRS) to measure CVC performance in a simulated torso.METHODS: Senior year medical students, first and last year residents (PGY1, LYR), and expert anesthesiologists performed a jugular CVC assessment in a simulated model (Laerdal IV Torso). A validated GRS for objective assessment of technical skills and motion analysis by ICSAD was used. Statistical analysis was performed through Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests for construct validity and Spearman correlation coefficients between the ICSAD and GRS scores for concurrent validity between both.RESULTS: 32 subjects were recruited (10 medical students, 8 PGY1, 8 LYR and 8 experts). Total path length measured with ICSAD and GRS scores were significantly different between all groups, except for LYR compared to experts (p=0.664 for GRS and p=0.72 for ICSAD). Regarding jugular CVC procedural time, LYR and experts were faster than PGY1 and MS (p