Ultrasound-guided renal cavity puncture simulators: comparative characterisation and validation

Abstract

Introduction. Teaching the skill of renal cavity puncture remains a pressing issue for both resident trainees and practicing physicians. Because patient-based training is ethically questionable and can be unsafe in terms of complications, training models have been created to practice skills.Objective. To compare two non-biological simulators for renal cavity puncture under ultrasound guidance: “UROSON”, GEOTAR, Russia and the kidney phantom “SafeToAct”, Estonia.Materials & methods. The study involved 40 young doctors with no experience in kidney puncture. Group 1 (20 people) practised on the UROSON simulator (GEOTAR, Russia). Group 2 (20 people) trained on a kidney phantom (SafeToAct, Estonia). Both simulators were evaluated by doctors before and after practice, as well as in the long-term period for 3 and 6 months. The assessment was carried out using a Likert scale.Results. The UROSON was rated higher (p < 0.05) according to the results of the comparison of the parameters (colour and consistency, visualisation of the cavity and calyx on ultrasound). Renal cavity visualisation of the UROSON simulator was rated as "good" throughout the study. Visualisation deteriorated by 6.9% after six months of use. Meanwhile, the SafeToAct kidney phantom showed a 64% deterioration in visualisation after one month of use. The SafeToAct kidney phantom was not evaluated later point because it became unusable. Both simulators had "tracks" after punctures. The UROSON had 30% and the SafeToAct kidney phantom 100% (p < 0.0001).Conclusion. The UROSON simulator can be used for training, master classes and accreditation of specialists. This simulator can be used for a long time.

Keywords

• simulator
• percutaneous access
• training
• puncture