ArticlePloS one2020
Feasibility of a customizable training environment for neurointerventional skills assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate full-scale patient-specific Circle of Willis models including aneurysms: A novel manufacturing approach.PloS one · 2025Article
- Avoiding adverse events in interventional radiology - a systematic review on the instruments.CVIR endovascular · 2024Review
- Evaluation of a scoring system to assess proficiency in cerebral angiography for neuroendovascular surgery education.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Evaluation of intracranial stenting in a simulated training and assessment environment for neuroendovascular procedures.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Questionnaire Survey of Neurointerventional Simulation Training in the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo meet increasing demands to train neuroendovascular techniques, we developed a dedicated simulator applying individualized three-dimensional intracranial aneurysm models ('HANNES'; Hamburg Anatomic Neurointerventional Endovascular Simulator). We hypothesized that HANNES provides a realistic and reproducible training environment to practice coil embolization and to exemplify disparities between neurointerventionalists, thus objectively benchmarking operators at different levels of experience.
methodsSix physicians with different degrees of neurointerventional procedural experience were recruited into a standardized training protocol comprising catheterization of two internal carotid artery (ICA) aneurysms and one basilar tip aneurysm, followed by introduction of one framing coil into each aneurysm and finally complete coil embolization of one determined ICA aneurysm. The level of difficulty increased with every aneurysm. Fluoroscopy was recorded and assessed for procedural characteristics and adverse events.
resultsPhysicians were divided into inexperienced and experienced operators, depending on their experience with microcatheter handling. Mean overall catheterization times increased with difficulty of the aneurysm model. Inexperienced operators showed longer catheterization times (median; IQR: 47; 30-84s) than experienced operators (21; 13-58s, p = 0.011) and became significantly faster during the course of the attempts (rho = -0.493, p = 0.009) than the experienced physicians (rho = -0.318, p = 0.106). Number of dangerous maneuvers throughout all attempts was significantly higher for inexperienced operators (median; IQR: 1.0; 0.0-1.5) as compared to experienced operators (0.0; 0.0-1.0, p = 0.014).
conclusionHANNES represents a modular neurointerventional training environment for practicing aneurysm coil embolization in vitro. Objective procedural metrics correlate with operator experience, suggesting that the system could be useful for assessing operator proficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.