Differences in Trocar Positioning within the Vertebral Body Using Two Different Positioning Methods: Effect on Trainee Performance
Purpose. To evaluate the educational effect of the Japanese Society of Interventional Radiology 7th Academic Summer Seminar from a technical perspective. Materials and Methods. Nineteen trainees participated in the seminar. The seminar consisted of vertebroplasty trainings using swine with the singl...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2011-01-01
|
| Series: | Radiology Research and Practice |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/830961 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832566556959178752 |
|---|---|
| author | Atsushi Komemushi Kenji Takizawa Norimitsu Tanaka Misako Yoshimatsu Kunihiro Yagihashi Yukihisa Ogawa Atsuko Fujikawa Iwao Uejima Yuya Koike Taiji Tamura Makoto Takahashi Jun Koizumi Koichiro Yamakado Seishi Nakatsuka Tetsuya Yoshioka Shozo Hirota Kenji Nakamura Yasuo Nakajima Sachio Kuribayashi Shuji Kariya Noboru Tanigawa Satoshi Sawada |
| author_facet | Atsushi Komemushi Kenji Takizawa Norimitsu Tanaka Misako Yoshimatsu Kunihiro Yagihashi Yukihisa Ogawa Atsuko Fujikawa Iwao Uejima Yuya Koike Taiji Tamura Makoto Takahashi Jun Koizumi Koichiro Yamakado Seishi Nakatsuka Tetsuya Yoshioka Shozo Hirota Kenji Nakamura Yasuo Nakajima Sachio Kuribayashi Shuji Kariya Noboru Tanigawa Satoshi Sawada |
| author_sort | Atsushi Komemushi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose. To evaluate the educational effect of the Japanese Society of Interventional Radiology 7th Academic Summer Seminar from a technical perspective. Materials and Methods. Nineteen trainees participated in the seminar. The seminar consisted of vertebroplasty trainings using swine with the single-plane landmark method and with the ISOcenter Puncture (ISOP) method. All trainees were advised by an instructor as they operated the instruments and punctured the vertebra. For each trainee, the accuracy in the final position of the needle tip of the initial puncture in each swine training was evaluated. Results. Error in the final position of the needle tip of ≥5 mm from the target puncture site occurred in the lateral direction in 42% (8/19) of trainees with the landmark method and 5% (1/19) with the ISOP method. No error ≥5 mm occurred in the vertical or anteroposterior directions. In terms of puncture accuracy, error in the lateral direction was significantly lower with the ISOP method than with the landmark method (2.2 ± 1.5 mm versus 5.6 ± 3.2 mm). Conclusion. This seminar was effective training for trocar placement for beginners. The puncture was more accurate with the ISOP method than with the landmark method. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-9c4e14995e03414bbe1af6a7f7ceef64 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-1941 2090-195X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2011-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Radiology Research and Practice |
| spelling | doaj-art-9c4e14995e03414bbe1af6a7f7ceef642025-02-03T01:03:45ZengWileyRadiology Research and Practice2090-19412090-195X2011-01-01201110.1155/2011/830961830961Differences in Trocar Positioning within the Vertebral Body Using Two Different Positioning Methods: Effect on Trainee PerformanceAtsushi Komemushi0Kenji Takizawa1Norimitsu Tanaka2Misako Yoshimatsu3Kunihiro Yagihashi4Yukihisa Ogawa5Atsuko Fujikawa6Iwao Uejima7Yuya Koike8Taiji Tamura9Makoto Takahashi10Jun Koizumi11Koichiro Yamakado12Seishi Nakatsuka13Tetsuya Yoshioka14Shozo Hirota15Kenji Nakamura16Yasuo Nakajima17Sachio Kuribayashi18Shuji Kariya19Noboru Tanigawa20Satoshi Sawada21Department of Radiology, Kansai Medical University, Moriguchi, Osaka 570-8507, JapanDepartment of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Self-Defense Forces Central Hospital, JapanTerumo Medical Pranex, R & D Center, Terumo Corporation, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Tokai University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Mie University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Narumi Hospital, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Hyogo College of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Daito Central Hospital, JapanDepartment of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Kansai Medical University, Moriguchi, Osaka 570-8507, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Kansai Medical University, Moriguchi, Osaka 570-8507, JapanDepartment of Radiology, Kansai Medical University, Moriguchi, Osaka 570-8507, JapanPurpose. To evaluate the educational effect of the Japanese Society of Interventional Radiology 7th Academic Summer Seminar from a technical perspective. Materials and Methods. Nineteen trainees participated in the seminar. The seminar consisted of vertebroplasty trainings using swine with the single-plane landmark method and with the ISOcenter Puncture (ISOP) method. All trainees were advised by an instructor as they operated the instruments and punctured the vertebra. For each trainee, the accuracy in the final position of the needle tip of the initial puncture in each swine training was evaluated. Results. Error in the final position of the needle tip of ≥5 mm from the target puncture site occurred in the lateral direction in 42% (8/19) of trainees with the landmark method and 5% (1/19) with the ISOP method. No error ≥5 mm occurred in the vertical or anteroposterior directions. In terms of puncture accuracy, error in the lateral direction was significantly lower with the ISOP method than with the landmark method (2.2 ± 1.5 mm versus 5.6 ± 3.2 mm). Conclusion. This seminar was effective training for trocar placement for beginners. The puncture was more accurate with the ISOP method than with the landmark method.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/830961 |
| spellingShingle | Atsushi Komemushi Kenji Takizawa Norimitsu Tanaka Misako Yoshimatsu Kunihiro Yagihashi Yukihisa Ogawa Atsuko Fujikawa Iwao Uejima Yuya Koike Taiji Tamura Makoto Takahashi Jun Koizumi Koichiro Yamakado Seishi Nakatsuka Tetsuya Yoshioka Shozo Hirota Kenji Nakamura Yasuo Nakajima Sachio Kuribayashi Shuji Kariya Noboru Tanigawa Satoshi Sawada Differences in Trocar Positioning within the Vertebral Body Using Two Different Positioning Methods: Effect on Trainee Performance Radiology Research and Practice |
| title | Differences in Trocar Positioning within the Vertebral Body Using Two Different Positioning Methods: Effect on Trainee Performance |
| title_full | Differences in Trocar Positioning within the Vertebral Body Using Two Different Positioning Methods: Effect on Trainee Performance |
| title_fullStr | Differences in Trocar Positioning within the Vertebral Body Using Two Different Positioning Methods: Effect on Trainee Performance |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences in Trocar Positioning within the Vertebral Body Using Two Different Positioning Methods: Effect on Trainee Performance |
| title_short | Differences in Trocar Positioning within the Vertebral Body Using Two Different Positioning Methods: Effect on Trainee Performance |
| title_sort | differences in trocar positioning within the vertebral body using two different positioning methods effect on trainee performance |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/830961 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT atsushikomemushi differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT kenjitakizawa differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT norimitsutanaka differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT misakoyoshimatsu differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT kunihiroyagihashi differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT yukihisaogawa differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT atsukofujikawa differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT iwaouejima differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT yuyakoike differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT taijitamura differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT makototakahashi differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT junkoizumi differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT koichiroyamakado differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT seishinakatsuka differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT tetsuyayoshioka differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT shozohirota differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT kenjinakamura differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT yasuonakajima differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT sachiokuribayashi differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT shujikariya differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT noborutanigawa differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance AT satoshisawada differencesintrocarpositioningwithinthevertebralbodyusingtwodifferentpositioningmethodseffectontraineeperformance |