Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To evaluate our initial experience with a multi-institutional workshop model of MRI/US fusion biopsy simulation for resident education.
Methods: Residents from 6 Chicago area urology programs participated in a MRI/US fusion biopsy workshop, which incorporated a 30 minute didactic session followed by hands-on simulation. The workshop was facilitated by fellowship-trained university faculty members and company representatives of MRI/US fusion technologies who provided teaching assistance and verbal feedback. Participants completed pre- and post-test nonvalidated 4-item questionnaires graded on a Likert scale. Information on resident prior experience with TRUS and MRI/US fusion biopsies was also collected. Pre-and postquestionnaires were compared with paired t tests for each survey domain (P <.05 were considered significant).
Results: Thirty-three residents (PGY 1-6, median PGY 3) participated in the workshop. 13 (40.6%) residents reported performing between 51 and 100 TRUS biopsies previously. Twenty-one (65.6%) reported being familiar with PIRADS v2 interpretation of prostate MR imaging, however 17 (53.1%) had never previously performed a MRI/US fusion biopsy. Analysis of pre- and post-test questionnaires showed significant increases in all 4 survey domains (P <.05). Residents demonstrated increased familiarity with indications for fusion biopsy (mean difference = +0.59), preparation for fusion biopsy (mean difference = +1.16), methods of MRI to TRUS image registration (mean difference = +1.38), and the advantages/disadvantages of perineal vs TRUS fusion biopsy (mean difference = +1.25).
Conclusion: This workshop model which combines didactics followed by hands-on simulation training is an effective method for increasing the knowledge and familiarity with MRI/US fusion biopsy of trainees.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.09.004 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!