Search

Purpose: Comparison of puncture deviation and puncture duration between computed tomography (CT)- and C-arm CT (CACT)-guided puncture performed by residents in training (RiT)., Methods: In a cohort of 25 RiTs enrolled in a research training program either CT- or CACT-guided puncture was performed on a phantom. Prior to the experiments, the RiT's level of training, experience playing a musical instrument, video games, and ball sports, and self-assessed manual skills and spatial skills were recorded. Each RiT performed two punctures. The first puncture was performed with a transaxial or single angulated needle path and the second with a single or double angulated needle path. Puncture deviation and puncture duration were compared between the procedures and were correlated with the self-assessments., Results: RiTs in both the CT guidance and CACT guidance groups did not differ with respect to radiologic experience (p = 1), angiographic experience (p = 0.415), and number of ultrasound-guided puncture procedures (p = 0.483), CT-guided puncture procedures (p = 0.934), and CACT-guided puncture procedures (p = 0.466). The puncture duration was significantly longer with CT guidance (without navigation tool) than with CACT guidance with navigation software (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the puncture duration between the first and second puncture using CT guidance (p = 0.719). However, in the case of CACT, the second puncture was significantly faster (p = 0.006). Puncture deviations were not different between CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture (p = 0.337) and between the first and second puncture of CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture (CT: p = 0.130; CACT: p = 0.391). The self-assessment of manual skills did not correlate with puncture deviation (p = 0.059) and puncture duration (p = 0.158). The self-assessed spatial skills correlated positively with puncture deviation (p = 0.011) but not with puncture duration (p = 0.541)., Conclusion: The RiTs achieved a puncture deviation that was clinically adequate with respect to their level of training and did not differ between CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture. The puncture duration was shorter when using CACT. CACT guidance with navigation software support has a potentially steeper learning curve. Spatial skills might accelerate the learning of image-guided puncture., Key Points: · The CT-guided and CACT-guided puncture experience of the RiTs selected as part of the program "Researchers for the Future" of the German Roentgen Society was adequate with respect to the level of training.. · Despite the lower collective experience of the RiTs with CACT-guided puncture with navigation software assistance, the learning curve regarding CACT-guided puncture may be faster compared to the CT-guided puncture technique.. · If the needle path is complex, CACT guidance with navigation software assistance might have an advantage over CT guidance.., Citation Format: · Meine TC, Hinrichs JB, Werncke T et al. Phantom study for comparison between computed tomography- and C-Arm computed tomography-guided puncture applied by residents in radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 272 - 280., Competing Interests: Lorenz Biggemann: L. B. declares travel grant from Siemens Healthineers and speakers honorarium from Bristol Myer-Squibb unrelated to this project.Jan –Peter Grunz: J.-P. G. declares employment as “Research Consultant” at Siemens Healthineers unrelated to this project.Markus Kopp: M. B. declares participation at the Siemens Healthineers speakers’ bureau unrelated to this project.Simon Lennartz: S. L. declares institutional research support from Philips unrelated to this project.Timo C. Meine: T.C.M. declares passive participation at the BTG TheraSphere™ DACH Summit 2018 unrelated to this to this project.Bernhard C. Meyer: B.C.M. declares relationships with Siemens Healthcare and ProMedicus (outside the submitted work).Frank K. Wacker: F. K. W. declares relationships with Siemens Healthcare and ProMedicus (outside the submitted work).David Zopfs: D. Z. declares institutional research support from Philips Healthcare unrelated to this project., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of Peyton's 4-step approach on musculoskeletal ultrasound skills in a peer-teaching environment as compared to traditional "see one, do one" training and to evaluate students' acceptance of the training strategy., Material and Methods: A total of 491 second year medical students (342 women, 149 men) completed a compulsory curricular course on musculoskeletal ultrasound. We randomly assigned students to receive traditional peer teaching or peer teaching using Peyton's four-step approach in small groups. All groups received theoretical and practical hands-on training of selected views of the knee and shoulder. We assessed differences in practical skills (objective structured practical examination, OSPE) and evaluation results with respect to teaching strategy., Results: There were no relevant differences between the two teaching interventions regarding the OSPE results. Students scored significantly higher in the knee view (knee 6.5 ± 1.7 points, shoulder 6.0 ± 1.9 points; p < 0.001), needed less time to display the required image (knee 36 ± 21 s, shoulder 43 ± 20 s; p < 0.001) and more students obtained the cut-off mark of 60% to pass the exam (knee 73%, shoulder 61%; p < 0.001). Acceptance of the peer-teaching concept was high, and the overall rating of the instructors was good. The majority of students enjoyed the course and rated it highly., Conclusion: Traditional teaching and Peyton's 4-step approach seem to be equally effective for teaching basic musculoskeletal ultrasound skills to undergraduate medical students. Qualitative analysis revealed high acceptance of both peer teaching strategies. Differences in course content complexity and degree of difficulty need to be addressed in future courses., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest./Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)