Which renal access technique for percutaneous nephrolithotomy is more difficult to teach using simulation in surgical training?
Keywords:Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, surgical training, simulator, triangulation, bull's eye, medical education
INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a challenging procedure that urology trainees should be familiar with during residency. Simulators, such as the PERC Mentor, allow the development of this competency in a safer, stress-free environment. There are two primary fluoroscopic methods of gaining percutaneous renal access: the triangulation method and the bull’s eye method. Our goal was to assess which method is easier to teach novices by using the PERC Mentor simulator. A secondary goal was to assess differences in subjective and objective outcomes.
METHODS: Fifteen simulator and procedure-naive medical trainees were randomized into two groups using a crossover, randomized study design. Participants were provided with written, video, in-person demonstrations and hands-on practice for each technique. They then performed each method and were assessed objectively using the PERC Mentor performance data report and subjectively using the PCNL global rating scale (GRS) scoring system. Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s T-test and non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test.
RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the outcomes and complication rates between the two methods. The bull’s eye method of obtaining percutaneous access was associated with a significant decrease in operative time (91 seconds vs. 128 seconds, p=0.03) and fluoroscopy time (87 seconds vs. 123 seconds, p=0.03) compared to the triangulation method.
CONCLUSIONS: Teaching of both techniques was equally well acquired by students. Both techniques had similar outcomes; however, the bull’s eye method was associated with less operative and fluoroscopy time when compared to the triangulation method among novices.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.