Improving results for carotid artery stenting by validation of the anatomic scoring system for carotid artery stenting with patient-specific simulated rehearsal.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a technically demanding procedure with a risk of periprocedural stroke. A scoring system based on anatomic criteria has been developed to facilitate patient selection for CAS. Advancements in simulation science also enable case evaluation through patient-specific virtual reality (VR) rehearsal on an endovascular simulator. This study aimed to validate the anatomic scoring system for CAS using the patient-specific VR technology. METHODS: Three patients were selected and graded according to the CAS scoring system (maximum score, 9): one easy (score, <4.9), one intermediate (score, 5.0-5.9), and one difficult (score, >7.0). The three cases were performed on the simulator in random order by 20 novice interventionalists pretrained in CAS. Technical performances were assessed using simulator-based metrics and expert-based ratings. RESULTS: The interventionalists took significantly longer to perform the difficult CAS case (median, 31.6 vs 19.7 vs 14.6 minutes; P<.0001) compared with the intermediate and easy cases; similarly, more fluoroscopy time (20.7 vs 12.1 vs 8.2 minutes; P<.0001), contrast volume (56.5 vs 51.5 vs 50.0 mL; P=.0060), and roadmaps (10 vs 9 vs 9; P=.0040) were used. The quality of performance declined significantly as the cases became more challenging (score, 24 vs 22 vs 19; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The anatomic scoring system for CAS can predict the difficulty of a CAS procedure as measured by patient-specific VR. This scoring system, with or without the additional use of patient-specific VR, can guide novice interventionalists in selecting appropriate patients for CAS. This may reduce the perioperative stroke risk and enhance patient safety.

Simulated procedure rehearsal is more effective than a preoperative generic warm-up for endovascular procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-specific simulated rehearsal (PsR) of a carotid artery stenting procedure (CAS) enables the interventionalist to rehearse the case before performing the procedure on the actual patient by incorporating patient-specific computed tomographic data into the simulation software. This study aimed to evaluate whether PsR of a CAS procedure can enhance the operative performance versus a virtual reality (VR) generic CAS warm-up procedure or no preparation at all. METHODS: During a 10-session cognitive/technical VR course, medical residents were trained in CAS. Thereafter, in a randomized crossover study, each participant performed a patient-specific CAS case 3 times on the simulator, preceded by 3 different tasks: a PsR, a generic case, or no preparation. Technical performances were assessed using simulator-based metrics and expert-based ratings. RESULTS: Twenty medical residents (surgery, cardiology, radiology) were recruited. Training plateaus were observed after 10 sessions for all participants. Performances were significantly better after PsR than after a generic warm-up or no warm-up for total procedure time (16.3 ± 0.6 vs 19.7 ± 1.0 vs 20.9 ± 1.1 minutes, P = 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (9.3 ± 0.1 vs 11.2 ± 0.6 vs 11.2 ± 0.5 minutes, P = 0.022) but did not influence contrast volume or number of roadmaps used during the "real" case. PsR significantly improved the quality of performance as measured by the expert-based ratings (scores 28 vs 25 vs 25, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific simulated rehearsal of a CAS procedure significantly improves operative performance, compared to a generic VR warm-up or no warm-up. This technology requires further investigation with respect to improved outcomes on patients in the clinical setting.

Recent advancements in medical simulation: patient-specific virtual reality simulation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-specific virtual reality simulation (PSVR) is a new technological advancement that allows practice of upcoming real operations and complements the established role of VR simulation as a generic training tool. This review describes current developments in PSVR and draws parallels with other high-stake industries, such as aviation, military, and sports. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed using PubMed and Internet search engines to retrieve data relevant to PSVR in medicine. All reports pertaining to PSVR were included. Reports on simulators that did not incorporate a haptic interface device were excluded from the review. RESULTS: Fifteen reports described 12 simulators that enabled PSVR. Medical procedures in the field of laparoscopy, vascular surgery, orthopedics, neurosurgery, and plastic surgery were included. In all cases, source data was two-dimensional CT or MRI data. Face validity was most commonly reported. Only one (vascular) simulator had undergone face, content, and construct validity. Of the 12 simulators, 1 is commercialized and 11 are prototypes. Five simulators have been used in conjunction with real patient procedures. CONCLUSIONS: PSVR is a promising technological advance within medicine. The majority of simulators are still in the prototype phase. As further developments unfold, the validity of PSVR will have to be examined much like generic VR simulation for training purposes. Nonetheless, similar to the aviation, military, and sport industries, operative performance and patient safety may be enhanced by the application of this novel technology.