» Articles » PMID: 24228719

Content and Face Validation of a Curriculum for Ultrasonic Propulsion of Calculi in a Human Renal Model

Overview
Journal J Endourol
Publisher Mary Ann Liebert
Date 2013 Nov 16
PMID 24228719
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Ultrasonic propulsion to reposition urinary tract calculi requires knowledge about ultrasound image capture, device manipulation, and interpretation. The purpose of this study was to validate a cognitive and technical skills curriculum to teach urologists ultrasonic propulsion to reposition kidney stones in tissue phantoms.

Materials And Methods: Ten board-certified urologists recruited from a single institution underwent a didactic session on renal ultrasound imaging. Subjects completed technical skills modules in tissue phantoms, including kidney imaging, pushing a stone through a translucent maze, and repositioning a lower pole calyceal stone. Objective cognitive and technical performance metrics were recorded. Subjects completed a questionnaire to ascertain face and content validity on a five-point Likert scale.

Results: Eight urologists (80%) had never attended a previous ultrasound course, and nine (90%) performed renal ultrasounds less frequently than every 6 months. Mean cognitive skills scores improved from 55% to 91% (p<0.0001) on pre- and post-didactic tests. In the kidney phantom, 10 subjects (100%) repositioned the lower pole calyceal stone to at least the lower pole infundibulum, while 9 (90%) successfully repositioned the stone to the renal pelvis. A mean±SD (15.7±13.3) pushes were required to complete the task over an average of 4.6±2.2 minutes. Urologists rated the curriculum's effectiveness and realism as a training tool at a mean score of 4.6/5.0 and 4.1/5.0, respectively.

Conclusions: The curriculum for ultrasonic propulsion is effective and useful for training urologists with limited ultrasound proficiency in stone repositioning technique. Further studies in animate and human models will be required to assess predictive validity.

Citing Articles

Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasonic Propulsion-Facilitated Clearance of Residual Kidney Stone Fragments vs Observation.

Sorensen M, Dunmire B, Thiel J, Cunitz B, Burke B, Levchak B J Urol. 2024; 212(6):811-820.

PMID: 39146526 PMC: 11560600. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000004186.


Diagnostic value ultrasound signs of stones less than or equal to 10 mm and clinico-radiological variants of ureteric colic.

Krakhotkin D, Chernylovskyi V, Sarica K, Tsaturyan A, Liatsikos E, Makevicius J Asian J Urol. 2023; 10(1):39-49.

PMID: 36721697 PMC: 9875159. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2022.03.015.


Innovations in Ultrasound Technology in the Management of Kidney Stones.

Dai J, Bailey M, Sorensen M, Harper J Urol Clin North Am. 2019; 46(2):273-285.

PMID: 30961860 PMC: 6461360. DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.009.


Characterizing the Acoustic Output of an Ultrasonic Propulsion Device for Urinary Stones.

Cunitz B, Dunmire B, Bailey M IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2017; 64(12):1818-1827.

PMID: 28981413 PMC: 5733808. DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2017.2758647.


Face and content validity of the virtual reality simulator 'ScanTrainer®'.

Alsalamah A, Campo R, Tanos V, Grimbizis G, Van Belle Y, Hood K Gynecol Surg. 2017; 14(1):18.

PMID: 28959176 PMC: 5596038. DOI: 10.1186/s10397-017-1020-6.


References
1.
McAchran S, Dogra V, Resnick M . Office urologic ultrasound. Urol Clin North Am. 2005; 32(3):337-52, vii. DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2005.03.005. View

2.
Leonard S, Thomas R . Diagnostic ultrasound in the urologist's office. Urology. 1987; 29(6):666-8. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(87)90120-8. View

3.
Lee J, Mucksavage P, Sundaram C, McDougall E . Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol. 2011; 185(4):1191-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.067. View

4.
Dalziel P, Noble V . Bedside ultrasound and the assessment of renal colic: a review. Emerg Med J. 2012; 30(1):3-8. DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201375. View

5.
Goldenberg E, Gilbert B . Office ultrasound for the urologist. Curr Urol Rep. 2012; 13(6):460-6. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-012-0280-y. View