Patient-specific Rehearsal Before EVAR: Influence on Technical and Nontechnical Operative Performance. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Issue 5 (November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Desender, Liesbeth M.; Van Herzeele, Isabelle; Lachat, Mario L.; Rancic, Zoran; Duchateau, Johan; Rudarakanchana, Nung; Bicknell, Colin D.; Heyligers, Jan M. M.; Teijink, Joep A. W.; Vermassen, Frank E.
• Is Part Of: Annals of surgery. Volume 264:Issue 5(2016:Nov.)
• Publication Date: 2016-11
• Subjects: endovascular team -- error -- EVAR -- patient safety -- patient-specific simulation; Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.005
• DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001871
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-4932

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To assess the effect of patient-specific virtual reality rehearsal (PsR) before endovascular infrarenal aneurysm repair (EVAR) on technical performance and procedural errors. Background: Endovascular procedures, including EVAR, are executed in a complex multidisciplinary environment, often treating high-risk patients. Consequently, this may lead to patient harm and procedural inefficiency. PsR enables the endovascular team to evaluate and practice the case in a virtual environment before treating the real patient. Methods: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial recruited 100 patients with a nonruptured infrarenal aortic or iliac aneurysm between September 2012 and June 2014. Cases were randomized to preoperative PsR or standard care (no PsR). Primary outcome measures were errors during the real procedure and technical operative metrics (total endovascular and fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, number of angiograms, and radiation dose). Results: There was a 26% [95% confidence interval (CI) 9%–40%, P = 0.004) reduction in minor errors, a 76% (95% CI 30%–92%, P = 0.009) reduction in major errors, and a 27% (95% CI 8.2%–42%, P = 0.007) reduction in errors causing procedural delay in the PsR group. The number of angiograms performed to visualize proximal and distal landing zones was 23% (95% CI 8%–36%, P = 0.005) and 21% (95% CI 7%–32%, P = 0.004) lower in the PsR group. Conclusions: PsR before EVAR can be used in different hospital settings by teams with various EVAR experience. It reduces perioperative errors and the number of angiograms required to deploy the stent graft, thereby reducing delays. Ultimately, it may improve patient safety and procedural efficiency. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text