Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners

Background: Utilising ultrasound technology has resulted in higher success and lower complication rates during regional anaesthesia (RA) procedures. Proper training is necessary to accurately identify structures, optimise images, and improve hand–eye coordination. Simulation training using immersive...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC Medical Education
Main Author: Mokhtar M.N.; Suhaini S.A.; Chan W.K.; Khalid I.; Tan K.W.; Lim A.C.C.; Budiman M.; Samsudin A.; Azizeh A.; Spor Madiman V.V.; Izaham A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BioMed Central Ltd 2024
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85209750051&doi=10.1186%2fs12909-024-06361-7&partnerID=40&md5=08ac92c3732d557cc2df3de093f7aa5d
id 2-s2.0-85209750051
spelling 2-s2.0-85209750051
Mokhtar M.N.; Suhaini S.A.; Chan W.K.; Khalid I.; Tan K.W.; Lim A.C.C.; Budiman M.; Samsudin A.; Azizeh A.; Spor Madiman V.V.; Izaham A.
Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners
2024
BMC Medical Education
24
1
10.1186/s12909-024-06361-7
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85209750051&doi=10.1186%2fs12909-024-06361-7&partnerID=40&md5=08ac92c3732d557cc2df3de093f7aa5d
Background: Utilising ultrasound technology has resulted in higher success and lower complication rates during regional anaesthesia (RA) procedures. Proper training is necessary to accurately identify structures, optimise images, and improve hand–eye coordination. Simulation training using immersive virtual environments and simulation models has enabled this competency training to be conducted safely before performing on patients. We conducted a study to compare the simulator performance and users’ feedback on a Blue Phantom Regional Anaesthesia Ultrasound Training Block and NeedleTrainer™. Methods: Forty-seven participants were recruited via convenient sampling during a RA workshop for novice practitioners. They were divided into the N or B group and then crossover to experience using both Blue Phantom and NeedleTrainer model. Time-to-reach-target, first-pass success rate, and complication rate were assessed, while the learning and confidence scores were rated using six-item and three-item questionnaires, respectively, via a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Blue Phantom model has a longer time-to-target as compared to the NeedleTrainer model (16 ± 8 vs 8 ± 3 s, p < 0.001), higher first- pass success rate (100% vs 80.9%), and lower complication rate (0% vs 19.1%). Higher overall learning satisfaction scores (28 ± 4 vs 25 ± 4, p = 0.003) and confidence scores after training (13 ± 2 vs 12 ± 2, p < 0.001) were recorded for the Blue Phantom model. Conclusions: We postulated that the artificial intelligence structure recognition software enables NeedleTrainer users to attain shorter time-to-target. That being said, Blue Phantom provides better operator learning satisfaction, improved confidence, higher success and lower complication rates among novice RA practitioners, possibly due to greater tactile feedback during the simulated training. © The Author(s) 2024.
BioMed Central Ltd
14726920
English
Article

author Mokhtar M.N.; Suhaini S.A.; Chan W.K.; Khalid I.; Tan K.W.; Lim A.C.C.; Budiman M.; Samsudin A.; Azizeh A.; Spor Madiman V.V.; Izaham A.
spellingShingle Mokhtar M.N.; Suhaini S.A.; Chan W.K.; Khalid I.; Tan K.W.; Lim A.C.C.; Budiman M.; Samsudin A.; Azizeh A.; Spor Madiman V.V.; Izaham A.
Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners
author_facet Mokhtar M.N.; Suhaini S.A.; Chan W.K.; Khalid I.; Tan K.W.; Lim A.C.C.; Budiman M.; Samsudin A.; Azizeh A.; Spor Madiman V.V.; Izaham A.
author_sort Mokhtar M.N.; Suhaini S.A.; Chan W.K.; Khalid I.; Tan K.W.; Lim A.C.C.; Budiman M.; Samsudin A.; Azizeh A.; Spor Madiman V.V.; Izaham A.
title Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners
title_short Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners
title_full Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners
title_fullStr Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners
title_sort Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners
publishDate 2024
container_title BMC Medical Education
container_volume 24
container_issue 1
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s12909-024-06361-7
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85209750051&doi=10.1186%2fs12909-024-06361-7&partnerID=40&md5=08ac92c3732d557cc2df3de093f7aa5d
description Background: Utilising ultrasound technology has resulted in higher success and lower complication rates during regional anaesthesia (RA) procedures. Proper training is necessary to accurately identify structures, optimise images, and improve hand–eye coordination. Simulation training using immersive virtual environments and simulation models has enabled this competency training to be conducted safely before performing on patients. We conducted a study to compare the simulator performance and users’ feedback on a Blue Phantom Regional Anaesthesia Ultrasound Training Block and NeedleTrainer™. Methods: Forty-seven participants were recruited via convenient sampling during a RA workshop for novice practitioners. They were divided into the N or B group and then crossover to experience using both Blue Phantom and NeedleTrainer model. Time-to-reach-target, first-pass success rate, and complication rate were assessed, while the learning and confidence scores were rated using six-item and three-item questionnaires, respectively, via a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Blue Phantom model has a longer time-to-target as compared to the NeedleTrainer model (16 ± 8 vs 8 ± 3 s, p < 0.001), higher first- pass success rate (100% vs 80.9%), and lower complication rate (0% vs 19.1%). Higher overall learning satisfaction scores (28 ± 4 vs 25 ± 4, p = 0.003) and confidence scores after training (13 ± 2 vs 12 ± 2, p < 0.001) were recorded for the Blue Phantom model. Conclusions: We postulated that the artificial intelligence structure recognition software enables NeedleTrainer users to attain shorter time-to-target. That being said, Blue Phantom provides better operator learning satisfaction, improved confidence, higher success and lower complication rates among novice RA practitioners, possibly due to greater tactile feedback during the simulated training. © The Author(s) 2024.
publisher BioMed Central Ltd
issn 14726920
language English
format Article
accesstype
record_format scopus
collection Scopus
_version_ 1820775429118623744