Scholarlink

Background <p>Air enema reduction is the primary non-surgical intervention for pediatric intussusception. The aim of this study was to determine if rapid-cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) with an ex vivo model of intussusception is more effective than traditional teaching methods (TTM) for improving radiology residents’ air enema reduction competency.</p> Methods <p>In this randomized controlled trial, 24 radiology residents were assigned to training with an ex vivo model of intussusception combined with RCDP (the RCDP group, <i>n</i> = 12) or without RCDP (the TTM group, <i>n</i> = 12). Both groups underwent assessments of theoretical knowledge and practical skills before and after training in air enema reduction, followed by evaluation of indicators of competency. Satisfaction with training and self-confidence surveys were also completed.</p> Results <p>Pre-training assessments showed that baseline performance was comparable between the two groups (both <i>P</i> &gt; 0.05). Post-training, both groups showed improvement from baseline (both <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05), with the RCDP group demonstrating more pronounced improvement than the TTM group (RCDP: effect sizes = 2.06 and 1.94, TTM: effect sizes = 1.16 and 1.20). Furthermore, after training, mean theoretical and practical evaluation scores were significantly better in the RCDP group than in the TTM group ( 88.67 ± 5.88 vs. 82.41 ± 7.31, <i>P</i> = 0.031 and 89.17 ± 4.64 vs. 80.92 ± 6.65, <i>P</i> = 0.048, respectively), with a shorter mean procedural time (74.26 ± 8.25&#xa0;s vs.133.41 ± 9.07&#xa0;s, <i>P</i> = 0.044) and a lower mean reduction pressure (5.83 ± 0.27&#xa0;kPa vs. 6.40 ± 0.10 kPa, <i>P</i> = 0.023). Residents in the RCDP group reported higher satisfaction scores (mean 4.58 ± 0.42 vs. 3.16 ± 0.38, <i>P</i> = 0.024) and higher self-confidence scores (<i>P</i> = 0.036).</p> Conclusions <p>RCDP simulation is superior to TTM for training residents in air enema reduction skills. It is an effective simulation teaching method that offers a novel perspective for innovative instruction on the skills required to perform this complex clinical procedure.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Rapid-cycle deliberate practice with an ex vivo porcine model of intussusception improves radiology residents’ competence in air enema reduction

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月25日

查看全文
  • Lichun Xie,
  • Yongkang Mo,
  • Jiejia Ma,
  • Yubin Xiao,
  • Xiaojia Wu,
  • Xilun Ma,
  • Danmiao Sun,
  • Dongping Ke,
  • Wei Mei,
  • Ruibin Huang

摘要

Background

Air enema reduction is the primary non-surgical intervention for pediatric intussusception. The aim of this study was to determine if rapid-cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) with an ex vivo model of intussusception is more effective than traditional teaching methods (TTM) for improving radiology residents’ air enema reduction competency.

Methods

In this randomized controlled trial, 24 radiology residents were assigned to training with an ex vivo model of intussusception combined with RCDP (the RCDP group, n = 12) or without RCDP (the TTM group, n = 12). Both groups underwent assessments of theoretical knowledge and practical skills before and after training in air enema reduction, followed by evaluation of indicators of competency. Satisfaction with training and self-confidence surveys were also completed.

Results

Pre-training assessments showed that baseline performance was comparable between the two groups (both P > 0.05). Post-training, both groups showed improvement from baseline (both P < 0.05), with the RCDP group demonstrating more pronounced improvement than the TTM group (RCDP: effect sizes = 2.06 and 1.94, TTM: effect sizes = 1.16 and 1.20). Furthermore, after training, mean theoretical and practical evaluation scores were significantly better in the RCDP group than in the TTM group ( 88.67 ± 5.88 vs. 82.41 ± 7.31, P = 0.031 and 89.17 ± 4.64 vs. 80.92 ± 6.65, P = 0.048, respectively), with a shorter mean procedural time (74.26 ± 8.25 s vs.133.41 ± 9.07 s, P = 0.044) and a lower mean reduction pressure (5.83 ± 0.27 kPa vs. 6.40 ± 0.10 kPa, P = 0.023). Residents in the RCDP group reported higher satisfaction scores (mean 4.58 ± 0.42 vs. 3.16 ± 0.38, P = 0.024) and higher self-confidence scores (P = 0.036).

Conclusions

RCDP simulation is superior to TTM for training residents in air enema reduction skills. It is an effective simulation teaching method that offers a novel perspective for innovative instruction on the skills required to perform this complex clinical procedure.