| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Berry, Max, 1969, et al.
(författare)
-
Endovascular training with animals versus virtual reality systems: an economic analysis
- 2008
-
Ingår i: J Vasc Interv Radiol. - : Elsevier BV. - 1051-0443. ; 19:2 Pt 1, s. 233-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: To assess the relative costs of a virtual reality (VR) laboratory and an animal laboratory for endovascular skills training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost data extracted from a previous experiment was used to perform a financial analysis according to the guidelines published by the National Institutes of Health. The analysis compared the purchase or rental of a Procedicus Vascular Interventional System Trainer to the rental of an animal laboratory. RESULTS: The VR laboratory course cost $3,434 per trainee versus $4,634 in the animal laboratory according to the purchase-versus-rental analysis. The cost ratio was 0.74 in favor of the VR laboratory. Cost ratio sensitivity analysis ranged from 0.25 in favor of the VR laboratory to 2.22 in favor of the animal laboratory. The first-year potential savings were $62,410 assuming exclusive use of the VR laboratory. The 5-year training savings totaled $390,376, excluding the $60,000 residual value of the simulator. Simulator rental reduced the course price to $1,076 per trainee and lowered the cost ratio to 0.23 in favor of the VR laboratory. Findings of sensitivity analysis ranged from 0.08 to 0.70 in favor of the VR laboratory. The first-year and 5-year potential national savings increased to $185,026 and $1,013,238, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although evidence remains sparse that the training of interventional skills in artificial environments translates to better performance in human procedures, there are good pedagogic grounds on which to believe that such training will become increasingly important. The present comparison of the direct costs of two such models suggests that VR training is less expensive than live animal training.
|
|
| 3. |
- Berry, Max, 1969, et al.
(författare)
-
The use of virtual reality for training in carotid artery stenting: a construct validation study
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Acta Radiologica. - : SAGE Publications. - 1600-0455 .- 0284-1851. ; 49:7, s. 801-5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Given that carotid artery stenosis (CAS) intervention is procedurally difficult, possesses an extensive learning curve, and involves a grave list of potential complications, construct validation of new non-clinical training devices is of increasing importance. Purpose: To evaluate the construct validity of the Procedicus-Virtual Interventional Simulator Trainer (Procedicus-VIST) and its use as a training tool. Material and Methods: Sixteen interventionalists (15 males, one female; mean interventional radiology [IR] experience >11 years) and 16 medical students (15 males, one female; no IR experience) received 1 hour of didactic instruction followed by an hour of familiarization training. Subjects then attempted to complete a carotid artery stenting procedure within 1 hour while their performance metrics were recorded. All participants completed a qualitative exit survey of subjective parameters using a visual analog scale. Results: Procedure and fluoroscopic time was 8.7 and 8.7 min greater in the novice group (P=0.0066 and P=0.0031), respectively. There were no significant differences in performances between the two groups in the remaining metrics of cine loops (number recorded), tool/vessel ratio, coverage percentage, and placement accuracy or residual stenosis. Contrast measurement metrics were found to be too imprecise for statistical analysis. Experienced and novice opinions differed significantly for six of 10 subjective parameters. No statistically significant difference in video-gaming habits was demonstrated. Conclusion: With the exception of the metrics of performance time and fluoroscopic use, construct validity of the Procedicus-VIST carotid metrics were not confirmed. Virtual reality simulation as a training method was valued more by novices than by experienced interventionalists.
|
|
