Neurourology and urodynamics · 2017
Applying translabial ultrasound to detect synthetic slings-You can do it too! A comparison of urology trainees to an attending radiologist.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shen Jim K, Faaborg Daniel, Rouse Glenn, Kelly Isaac, Li Roger, Alsyouf Muhannad, Myklak Kristene, Distelberg Brian, Staack Andrea
Аннотация
AIMS: Translabial ultrasound (TUS) is a useful tool for identifying and assessing synthetic slings. This study evaluates the ability of urology trainees to learn basic pelvic anatomy and sling assessment on TUS.
METHODS: Eight urology trainees (six residents and two medical students) received a lecture reviewing basic anatomy and sling assessment on TUS followed by review of two training cases. Next, they underwent a 126-question examination assessing their ability to identify anatomic planes and structures in those planes, identify the presence of slings, and assess the location and intactness of a sling. The correct response rate was compared to that of an attending radiologist experienced in reading TUS. Non-parametric tests (Fisher's exact, chi-squared tests, and Yates correction) were used for statistical analysis, with P < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: 847/1008 (84.0%) of questions were answered correctly by eight trainees compared to 119/126 (94.4%) by the radiologist (P = 0.001). The trainees' correct response rates and Fisher's exact test P values associated with the difference in correct answers between radiologist and trainee were as follows: identification of anatomic plane (94.4%; P = 0.599), identification of structure in sagittal view (80.6%; P = 0.201), identification of structure in transverse view (88.2%; P = 0.696), presence of synthetic sling (95.8%; P = 1.000), location of sling along the urethra in (71.5%; P = 0.403), intactness of sling (82.6%; P = 0.311), and laterality of sling disruption (75.0%; P = 0.076).
CONCLUSIONS: Urology trainees can quickly learn to identify anatomic landmarks and assess slings on TUS with reasonable proficiency compared to an experienced attending radiologist.
METHODS: Eight urology trainees (six residents and two medical students) received a lecture reviewing basic anatomy and sling assessment on TUS followed by review of two training cases. Next, they underwent a 126-question examination assessing their ability to identify anatomic planes and structures in those planes, identify the presence of slings, and assess the location and intactness of a sling. The correct response rate was compared to that of an attending radiologist experienced in reading TUS. Non-parametric tests (Fisher's exact, chi-squared tests, and Yates correction) were used for statistical analysis, with P < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: 847/1008 (84.0%) of questions were answered correctly by eight trainees compared to 119/126 (94.4%) by the radiologist (P = 0.001). The trainees' correct response rates and Fisher's exact test P values associated with the difference in correct answers between radiologist and trainee were as follows: identification of anatomic plane (94.4%; P = 0.599), identification of structure in sagittal view (80.6%; P = 0.201), identification of structure in transverse view (88.2%; P = 0.696), presence of synthetic sling (95.8%; P = 1.000), location of sling along the urethra in (71.5%; P = 0.403), intactness of sling (82.6%; P = 0.311), and laterality of sling disruption (75.0%; P = 0.076).
CONCLUSIONS: Urology trainees can quickly learn to identify anatomic landmarks and assess slings on TUS with reasonable proficiency compared to an experienced attending radiologist.