PortalPublikationenCurrent status of training environments in neuro-interventio...

Current status of training environments in neuro-interventional practice: are animal models still contemporary?

Standard

Current status of training environments in neuro-interventional practice: are animal models still contemporary? / Nawka, Marie Teresa; Fiehler, Jens; Spallek, Johanna; Buhk, Jan-Hendrik; Frölich, Andreas Maximilian.

in: J NEUROINTERV SURG, Jahrgang 11, Nr. 3, 03.2019, S. 283-289.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Nawka, MT, Fiehler, J, Spallek, J, Buhk, J-H & Frölich, AM 2019, 'Current status of training environments in neuro-interventional practice: are animal models still contemporary?', J NEUROINTERV SURG, Jg. 11, Nr. 3, S. 283-289. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014036

APA

Nawka, M. T., Fiehler, J., Spallek, J., Buhk, J-H., & Frölich, A. M. (2019). Current status of training environments in neuro-interventional practice: are animal models still contemporary? J NEUROINTERV SURG, 11(3), 283-289. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014036

Vancouver

Nawka MT, Fiehler J, Spallek J, Buhk J-H, Frölich AM. Current status of training environments in neuro-interventional practice: are animal models still contemporary? J NEUROINTERV SURG. 2019 Mär;11(3):283-289. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014036

Bibtex

@article{132af40eec1f4bd2a1159dfa4c1aa9ba,
title = "Current status of training environments in neuro-interventional practice: are animal models still contemporary?",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Several different training environments for practicing neurointerventional procedures have been realized in silico, in vitro, and in vivo. We seek to replace animal-based training with suitable alternatives. In an effort to determine present training model distribution and preferences, we interviewed interventional neuroradiologists from 25 different countries about their experience in distinct training environments.METHODS: A voluntary online survey comprising 24 questions concerning the different training facilities was designed and electronically conducted with the members of the European Society for Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy.RESULTS: Seventy-one physicians with an average experience of 11.8 (±8.7) years completed the survey. The majority of participants had experience with animal-based training (eg, stroke intervention: 36; 50.7%). Overall, animal-based training was rated as the most suitable environment to practice coil embolization (20 (±6)), flow diverter placement (13 (±7)), and stroke intervention (13.5 (±9)). In-vitro training before using a new device in patients was supported by most participants (35; 49.3%). Additionally, preference for certain training models was related to the years of experience.CONCLUSION: This survey discloses the preferred training modalities in European neurointerventional centers with the majority of physicians supporting the general concept of in-vitro training, concomitantly lacking a standardized curriculum for educating neurointerventional physicians. Most suitable training modalities appeared to be dependent on procedure and experience. As animal-based training is still common, alternate artificial environments meeting these demands must be further developed.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Nawka, {Marie Teresa} and Jens Fiehler and Johanna Spallek and Jan-Hendrik Buhk and Fr{\"o}lich, {Andreas Maximilian}",
note = "{\textcopyright} Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.",
year = "2019",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014036",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "283--289",
journal = "J NEUROINTERV SURG",
issn = "1759-8478",
publisher = "BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Current status of training environments in neuro-interventional practice: are animal models still contemporary?

AU - Nawka, Marie Teresa

AU - Fiehler, Jens

AU - Spallek, Johanna

AU - Buhk, Jan-Hendrik

AU - Frölich, Andreas Maximilian

N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - PURPOSE: Several different training environments for practicing neurointerventional procedures have been realized in silico, in vitro, and in vivo. We seek to replace animal-based training with suitable alternatives. In an effort to determine present training model distribution and preferences, we interviewed interventional neuroradiologists from 25 different countries about their experience in distinct training environments.METHODS: A voluntary online survey comprising 24 questions concerning the different training facilities was designed and electronically conducted with the members of the European Society for Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy.RESULTS: Seventy-one physicians with an average experience of 11.8 (±8.7) years completed the survey. The majority of participants had experience with animal-based training (eg, stroke intervention: 36; 50.7%). Overall, animal-based training was rated as the most suitable environment to practice coil embolization (20 (±6)), flow diverter placement (13 (±7)), and stroke intervention (13.5 (±9)). In-vitro training before using a new device in patients was supported by most participants (35; 49.3%). Additionally, preference for certain training models was related to the years of experience.CONCLUSION: This survey discloses the preferred training modalities in European neurointerventional centers with the majority of physicians supporting the general concept of in-vitro training, concomitantly lacking a standardized curriculum for educating neurointerventional physicians. Most suitable training modalities appeared to be dependent on procedure and experience. As animal-based training is still common, alternate artificial environments meeting these demands must be further developed.

AB - PURPOSE: Several different training environments for practicing neurointerventional procedures have been realized in silico, in vitro, and in vivo. We seek to replace animal-based training with suitable alternatives. In an effort to determine present training model distribution and preferences, we interviewed interventional neuroradiologists from 25 different countries about their experience in distinct training environments.METHODS: A voluntary online survey comprising 24 questions concerning the different training facilities was designed and electronically conducted with the members of the European Society for Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy.RESULTS: Seventy-one physicians with an average experience of 11.8 (±8.7) years completed the survey. The majority of participants had experience with animal-based training (eg, stroke intervention: 36; 50.7%). Overall, animal-based training was rated as the most suitable environment to practice coil embolization (20 (±6)), flow diverter placement (13 (±7)), and stroke intervention (13.5 (±9)). In-vitro training before using a new device in patients was supported by most participants (35; 49.3%). Additionally, preference for certain training models was related to the years of experience.CONCLUSION: This survey discloses the preferred training modalities in European neurointerventional centers with the majority of physicians supporting the general concept of in-vitro training, concomitantly lacking a standardized curriculum for educating neurointerventional physicians. Most suitable training modalities appeared to be dependent on procedure and experience. As animal-based training is still common, alternate artificial environments meeting these demands must be further developed.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014036

DO - 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014036

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 30049799

VL - 11

SP - 283

EP - 289

JO - J NEUROINTERV SURG

JF - J NEUROINTERV SURG

SN - 1759-8478

IS - 3

ER -