Abstract
Background:
To create and evaluate a realistic, anatomically accurate, and user-friendly bladder phantom for reproducible endourological training purposes and endoscope mastery.
Materials and Methods:
The anatomy of full bladders was mapped from human computed tomography datasets. After a 3D model development process, content evidence and response process evidence (RPE) of the phantom were evaluated using the system usability scale (SUS), 5-point Likert scale questionnaires, and task execution of experienced urologists (U) and endoscopy-naive medical students (MS) in two training sessions (first vs second). Required validation cohort sizes (1:10) of the evaluating urologists (n = 12) and students (n = 115) were precalculated. Time measurements were recorded. Students were additionally evaluated by a validated global psychomotor assessment score (GPSS). Group comparisons were calculated by the Mann–Whitney U test. All tests were two sided with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results:
Content evidence was assessed by urologists with an “excellent” SUS score of 89.4 ± 5.9 and an average “agreement” of ≥4 pts in the Likert scale questionnaires. RPE was assessed by intra- and intergroup time comparison for the execution of endoscopic tasks (cystoscopy [CY], guidewire insertion, and tumor biopsy). For CY, U: first 17.6 ± 4.4 seconds vs second 12.4 ± 2.0 seconds, p = 0.002; MS: first 56.6 ± 28.2 seconds vs second 28.6 ± 14.7 seconds, p < 0.001; U vs MS: first U 17.6 ± 4.4 seconds vs first MS 56.6 ± 28.2 seconds, p < 0.001, second U 12.4 ± 2.0 seconds vs second MS 28.6 ± 14.7 seconds, p < 0.001. Significant time differences were documented for all tasks and sessions (p < 0.001). Additionally, significant GPSS differences were recorded between the sessions (GPSS: first 20.4 ± 5.1 pts vs second 24.7 ± 4.0 pts, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Our low-fidelity 3D-printed bladder, called BladCap, is an easy-to-assemble, inexpensive, and robust phantom. We present data, which establish construct validity to support use as a clinical training device.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
