[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Prior work has established that performance on an endovascular simulator incorporating tactile feedback (haptics) correlates with previous endovascular experience and can be improved by training. This study was designed to test the ability to define and measure innate endovascular aptitude and empirically correct performance and to determine whether these are two different things.
Subjects ranging in endovascular skill level from novice to expert were surveyed to determine video game experience and skill, endovascular level of training, and endovascular experience. They were then tested by using a standard protocol requiring timed advancement of a catheter and wire sequentially into each of three vessels arising from a simulated type I arch. Recorded trials were independently and blindly scored by two experienced endovascular faculty members by using a modification of a previously validated scale (Modified Reznick Scale; MRS). Summed scores were analyzed by frequency analysis and categorized as satisfactory and unsatisfactory on the basis of a clear bimodal distribution. Categorical outcome, time to task completion, and other variables were analyzed by means of linear regression, analysis of variance, and Welch modified two-sample t tests, as indicated.
A total of 61 subjects were enrolled: 42% students, 8% technicians, 19% surgeons, 13% cardiologists, and 18% radiologists. Of these, 62% were considered novices and 30% experts on the basis of previous experience; 56% of subjects worked in an endovascular-related occupation. MRS scores were highly correlated between raters (P < .0001) and showed a clear bimodal distribution, with subjects in any endovascular occupation (including technicians) scoring significantly better than all others (P < .0001). Hours of video games played per week were correlated highly with completion times (P < .001) and MRS scores (P < .001). Measures of formal training (number of endovascular cases and occupation) correlated highly with completion times (all P < .03) and MRS scores (all P < .008). In comparing completion times vs MRS scores, three groups were apparent: unskilled-inexperienced, skilled-inexperienced, and skilled-experienced, corresponding primarily to senior subjects without endovascular experience, younger subjects without endovascular experience, and formally trained endovascular physicians, respectively. Those judged intermediate in aptitude reduced times to the lowest possible level before improving their MRS scores.
Although inherently subjective, the MRS yields reproducible scores that correlate with endovascular experience and formal training. Experts and novices with extensive video game experience achieve short completion times, whereas high MRS scores are achieved only by formally trained subjects. Innate endovascular aptitude and empirically correct performance may be two separate things, and aptitude may be acquirable through (or identified by) extensive nonmedical video game experience.
Journal of Vascular Surgery 02/2006; 43(1):47-55. · 2.88 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine whether performance on a simulator model of carotid artery stenting correlates with previous endovascular experience and to assess the effects of repetition and training.
Participants were stratified to untrained and advanced skill groups on the basis of number of endovascular procedures previously performed. Baseline performance was assessed by means of a pretest, and participants were randomized to practice and no-practice groups. Practice consisted of a 30-minute to 60-minute proctored session before taking a final test; those in the no-practice group proceeded directly to the final test without this session. Primary outcomes were completion of a standardized protocol and the length of time needed to complete all steps.
Twenty-nine subjects (16 untrained, 13 advanced) participated fully in the study. Ninety-two percent of participants in the advanced group successfully completed the pretest, versus 63% in the untrained group (P = .09); mean time to successful completion was 29.9 +/- 4.8 (mean +/- SD) versus 48.0 +/- 9.9 minutes, respectively (P < .001). Subjects who received no practice did not significantly improve their completion times between pretest and final test, whereas those who received practice did (novice, 47.9 +/- 7.0 minutes vs 24.5 +/- 2.9 minutes, P < .001; advanced, 29.6 +/- 3.1 minutes vs 20.2 +/- 4.1 minutes, P < .001). The group without previous training had significantly more time improvement from training than did the advanced group. Exit survey results showed that those who had the opportunity to practice more commonly believed that the simulator increased their endovascular skills and interest in vascular surgery (both P < .01 vs untrained group).
Performance on the carotid stenting simulator correlated with previous endovascular experience. Although both novice and advanced groups improved their time after a 30-minute to 60-minute proctored training session, improvement in the novice group was greater than that in the advanced group, which suggests that novices may benefit disproportionately from this type of training.
Journal of Vascular Surgery 01/2005; 40(6):1118-25. · 2.88 Impact Factor