VALIDATION OF AFFORDABLE AND APPLICABLE KIDNEY PHANTOM MODEL (AARM) FOR ULTRASOUND-GUIDED PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROSTOMY SIMULATION
AbstractObjective: Percutaneous nephrostomy (PN) is a medical skill that requires the repetition of hand and eye coordination exercises. The limited opportunity to achieve learning curve at mastering it, increases the morbidity risk to the patient. We therefore developed an Affordable and Applicable Renal Model (AARM) phantom to simulate percutaneous nephrostomy with ultrasound (USG) guiding. Our goal is to present the development of an affordable cost kidney phantom model and evaluate validity (face, content, and construct) with its reliability. Material & Methods: The AARM phantom made from mixture of gelatin, glycerin and sorbitol, then molded with latex gloves comprising the parenchymal portion and the renal pelvicalyceal system connected to a 10Fr nasogastric tube and a 20 cc syringe. Phantom then assessed by urology residents at Hasan Sadikin Hospital Bandung. Senior resident (n=20) who are adept at performing independent PN then compared with junior resident (n=15), and then we analysis both group skills by measure PN initial puncture time and its failure to establish its validity and reliability. Results: This phantom cost production was 30USD (400.000 IDR) and after tested by urology residents, it had simulated the series of PN action steps which described the face and content validation test, with correlation results (Pearson, p<0.05); Very strong (53.8%), strong (30.8%), and medium (15.4%). The reliability test with cronbach alpha value was 0.934 (reliable if cronbach alpha>0.60). The average initial puncture time measure and PN failure result of junior and senior residents are respectively 37.03 ± 9.5 vs 10.90 ± 0.65 seconds and 4.93 ± 1.33 vs 0.75 ± 0.63 times. When both skills performance was analyzed, the senior resident showed significantly (p<0.01) faster and fewer errors. Conclusion: This AARM phantom had successfully represent the whole sequence actions key step of PN skills and this study has been established its validity (face, content and construct). In addition, this phantom material not only made from affordable cost but also applicable and could be used repeatedly (recycled). We propose the use of this AARM phantom simulator as an initial steps practices to introduce percutaneous nephrostomy skills to residents before they went to the operating room.
Zagoria R J, Dyer R B. Do's and don't's of percutaneous nephrostomy. Acad Radiol. 1999; 6(6): 370–7.
Sekhar Aarti M.D., Maryellen R. Sun, M.D., Siewert Bettina, M.D. A tissue phantom model for training residents in ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. J Acad Radiol. 2013; 21: 902-8.
Faulkner, Austin, Bourgeois, Yong C., Bradley, Alexander S., Pascia. A robust and inexpensive phantom for fluoroscopically guided lumbar puncture training. society for simulation in healthcare 2015; 10: 54-8.
Kunkler K. The role of medical simulation: an overview. Int J Med Robot. 2006; 2(3): 203-10.
Cooper JB, Taqueti VR. A brief history of the development of mannequin simulators for clinical education and training. Postgrad Med J. 2008; 84(997): 563-70.
Wisborg T, Brattebø G, Brinchmann-Hansen A, Hansen KS. Mannequin or standardized patient: participants’ assessment of two training modalities in trauma team simulation. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2009; 17: 59.
Nishisaki A, Keren R, Nadkarni V. Does simulation improve patient safety? Self-efficacy, competence, operational performance, and patient safety. Anesthesiol Clin. 2007; 25(2): 225-36.
Sultan SF., Shorten G., Iohom G. Simulators for training in ultrasound guided procedures. Med Ultrason. 2013; 15(2): 125-31.
Gordon JA, Wilkerson WM, Shaffer DW, Armstrong EG. Practicing medicine without risk: student’s and educators responses to high-fielity patient simulation. Acad Med. 2001; 76: 469-472.
Issenberg SB, Scalesa RJ. Best evidence on high-fielity simulation: What clinical teachers need to know. Clin Teach. 2007; 4: 73-7.
Rock B G, Leonard A P, Freeman S J. A Training simulator for ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrostomy insertion. The British journal of Radiology. 2010; 83: 612-4.
Hammond L, Ketchum J, Schwarz BF. A new approach to urology training: a laboratory model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 2004; 172: 1950–2.
Strohmaier WL, Giese A. Ex-Vivo, Training model for percutaneous renal surgery. Urol Res. 2005; 33: 191–3.
Meng K, Lipson JA. Utilizing a pacs-integrated ultrasound-guided breast biopsy simulation exercise to reinforce the acr practice guideline for ultrasound-guided percutaneous breast interventional procedures during radiology residency. Acad Radiol. 2011; 18(10): 1324-8.
Harvey JA, Moran RE, Hamer MM, DeAngelis GA, Omary RA. Evaluation of a turkey-breast phantom for teaching freehand, us-guided core-needle breast biopsy. Acad Radiol. 1997; 4(8): 565-9.
Nicotra JJ, Gay SB, Wallace KK, McNulty BC, Dameron RD. Evaluation of a breast biopsy phantom for learning freehand ultrasound-guided biopsy of the liver. Acad Radiol. 1994; 1(4): 385-7.
Osmer CLC et al. A gelatine-based ultrasound phantom. Anaesthesia. 2008; 63(1): 107.
McNamara MPM, McNamara MEM. Preparation of a homemade ultrasound biopsy phantom. J Clin Ultrasound. 1989; 17(6): 456-8.
Karim, R., Sengupta, S., Samanta, S., Aich, R., Das, U., & Deb, P. Percutaneous nephrostomy by direct puncture technique: an observational study. Indian Journal of Nephrology.m2010; 20(2): 84-8.
Pereira da Silva, F. M. G. S., Donato, H., Mota, S. J., Donato, P., Caseiro Alves F. Coimbra/PT. Phantoms for training ultrasound guided procedures importance of simulation and low-cost alternatives. European Society of Radiology. 2015; 84: 165–6.
Nicholson RA, Crofton M. Training phantom for ultrasound guided biopsy. Br J Radiology. 1997; 70: 192–4.
Phal PM, Brooks DM, Wolfe R. Sonographically guided biopsy of focal lesions: A comparison of freehand and probeguided techniques using a phantom. Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184: 1652–6.
Wanzel KR, Ward M, Reznick RK. Teaching the surgical craft: From selection to certification. Curr Prob Surg. 2002; 39: 573–659.
Scott DJ, Cendan JC, Pugh CM, Minter RM, Dunnington GL, Kozar RA. The changing face of surgical education: simulation as the new paradigm. J Surg Res. 2008; 147: 189-3.
Brewin J. T.Nedas, B. Challacombe, O Elhage, J.Keisu, P.Dasgupta. Face, content and costruct validation of the first virtual reality laparoscopic nephrectomy simulator. BJUI. 2010; 106: 850-4.
Elkoushy AM, Andonian S. Surgical, radiologic, and endoscopic anatomy of the kidney and ureter. Campbell-Walsh Urology 11th edition; 2017. p. 967.
Olapade-Olapa, E.O., Adebayi, S.A., Chibuzo, I.N.,Takure, A.O.,Okeke, L.I., Shittu, O.B. The UCH Bladder manikin – a locally designed teaching aid for suprapubic catheterization in low-resource countries. Elsevier-African Journal of Urology. 2015; 21: 162-5.
T.Q. Tran, A. Scherpbier, J. Van Dalen, P.E. Wright. Teacher-made models, the answer for medical skills in developing countries? BMC Med Educ. 2012; 12: 98.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.