Type:
Educational Exhibit
Keywords:
Interventional non-vascular, Interventional vascular, CT, Education, Education and training
Authors:
L. Fröhlich, A. H. Mahnken
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2023/C-15285
Findings and procedure details
Only one-third of the IR procedures listed (4 of 12) were correctly identified by the majority of students (Fig. 2). Thus, about three-quarters of the students correctly assigned each of arterial revascularization (77%), endovascular aortic repair (73%), or percutaneous angioplasty (71%) to IR. That the venous access port implantation is an IR procedure was known by slightly more than half of the students (55%).
Accordingly, two-thirds of the typical IR procedures (8 of 12) were not identified as such by the majority of students (Fig. 3). These include, for example, vertebroplasty (71%), lung biopsy (62%), and hepatic tumor ablation (59%).
In addition, many students incorrectly assumed that procedures from other specialties (distractors) were typical IR procedures, such as thyroid radionuclide treatment (58%) or radiotherapy for bone metastases (54%) (Fig. 4).
A differentiated evaluation of the two study years shows that students in higher clinical semesters have a better understanding of IR. Of the third-year medical students, the majority correctly identified only four of twelve IR procedures, whereas the majority of the fifth-year medical students correctly assigned twice as many (eight) IR procedures. However, this result has to be interpreted cautiously due to the smaller sample size.