Endovascular Surgical Neuroradiology Simulation

  • Teddy E. KimEmail author
  • Mark B. Frenkel
  • Kyle M. Fargen
  • Stacey Q. Wolfe
  • J. Mocco
Part of the Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation book series (CHS)


Simulation is rapidly growing as a means of training a new generation of physicians in specific procedural skills. Endovascular surgical neuroradiology is one specialty within neurosurgery that is particularly well suited for simulation-based training. As the procedures are performed with catheters, wire, and similar devices outside of the patient with a visual representation of what is occurring inside the patient on fluoroscopy, endovascular simulators are relatively simple to create. Several studies have shown that simulation courses with supervised practice is an effective platform for teaching cerebral angiography skills. Flow model simulation is a means of learning device techniques in a fluid-based medium. However the complex interactions between wire and catheter, skills dependent on the fluid medium such as contrast injection and embolism prevention, and capturing nuanced, subtle proceduralist hand movements have been extraordinarily difficult to replicate in simulation. In this chapter, we review endovascular simulation, the available literature on endovascular surgical neuroradiology simulation, currently available simulators, and the future role of neuroendovascular simulation in physician practice and training.


Angiography Catheter Cerebral aneurysm Endovascular Flow model Neurointerventional surgery Neurosurgery Simulator 

Supplementary material

Video 6.1

A brief demonstration of both digital and traditional flow model angiography simulators (MP4 40634 kb)


  1. 1.
    Andersen SA, Konge L, Caye-Thomasen P, Sorensen MS. Retention of mastoidectomy skills after virtual reality simulation training. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;142:635–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dayal AK, Fisher N, Magrane D, Goffman D, Bernstein PS, Katz NT. Simulation training improves medical students’ learning experiences when performing real vaginal deliveries. Simul Healthc. 2009;4:155–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dawe SR, Pena GN, Windsor JA, et al. Systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation-based training. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1063–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dawe SR, Windsor JA, Broeders JA, Cregan PC, Hewett PJ, Maddern GJ. A systematic review of surgical skills transfer after simulation-based training: laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopy. Ann Surg. 2014;259:236–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sturm LP, Windsor JA, Cosman PH, Cregan P, Hewett PJ, Maddern GJ. A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Ann Surg. 2008;248:166–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dorozhkin D, Nemani A, Roberts K, et al. Face and content validation of a Virtual Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery Trainer (VTEST). Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5529–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boza C, Leon F, Buckel E, et al. Simulation-trained junior residents perform better than general surgeons on advanced laparoscopic cases. Surg Endosc. 2016;31:135–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scott DJ, Ritter EM, Tesfay ST, Pimentel EA, Nagji A, Fried GM. Certification pass rate of 100% for fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skills after proficiency-based training. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1887–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waterman BR, Martin KD, Cameron KL, Owens BD, Belmont PJ Jr. Simulation training improves surgical proficiency and safety during diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy performed by residents. Orthopedics. 2016;39:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shore EM, Grantcharov TP, Husslein H, et al. Validating a standardized laparoscopy curriculum for gynecology residents: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:204.e1–204.e11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Narra P, Kuban J, Grandpre LE, Singh J, Barrero J, Norbash A. Videoscopic phantom-based angiographic simulation: effect of brief angiographic simulator practice on vessel cannulation times. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20:1215–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahmed K, Keeling AN, Fakhry M, et al. Role of virtual reality simulation in teaching and assessing technical skills in endovascular intervention. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodriguez D, Berenguera A, Pujol-Ribera E, Capella J, Peray JL, Roma J. Current and future competencies for public health professionals. Gac Sanit. 2013;27:388–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chaer RA, Derubertis BG, Lin SC, et al. Simulation improves resident performance in catheter-based intervention: results of a randomized, controlled study. Ann Surg. 2006;244:343–52.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patel AD, Gallagher AG, Nicholson WJ, Cates CU. Learning curves and reliability measures for virtual reality simulation in the performance assessment of carotid angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1796–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gallagher AG, Renkin J, Buyl H, Lambert H, Marco J. Development and construct validation of performance metrics for multivessel coronary interventions on the VIST virtual reality simulator at PCR2005. EuroIntervention. 2006;2:101–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee JT, Qiu M, Teshome M, Raghavan SS, Tedesco MM, Dalman RL. The utility of endovascular simulation to improve technical performance and stimulate continued interest of preclinical medical students in vascular surgery. J Surg Educ. 2009;66:367–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Herzeele I, Aggarwal R, Neequaye S, et al. Experienced endovascular interventionalists objectively improve their skills by attending carotid artery stent training courses. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;35:541–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Herzeele I, Aggarwal R, Choong A, Brightwell R, Vermassen FE, Cheshire NJ. Virtual reality simulation objectively differentiates level of carotid stent experience in experienced interventionalists. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46:855–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dawson DL, Meyer J, Lee ES, Pevec WC. Training with simulation improves residents’ endovascular procedure skills. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    See KW, Chui KH, Chan WH, Wong KC, Chan YC. Evidence for endovascular simulation training: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;51:441–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fargen KM, Arthur AS, Bendok BR, et al. Experience with a simulator-based angiography course for neurosurgical residents: beyond a pilot program. Neurosurgery. 2013;73(Suppl 1):46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arthur A, Hoit D, Coon A, Delgado Almandoz JE, Elijovich L, Cekirge S, Fiorella D. Physician training within the WEB Intrasaccular Therapy (WEB-IT) study. J Neurointerv Surg. 2018;10(5):500–4.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fargen KM, Siddiqui AH, Veznedaroglu E, Turner RD, Ringer AJ, Mocco J. Simulator based angiography education in neurosurgery: results of a pilot educational program. J Neurointerv Surg. 2012;4:438–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jensen UJ, Jensen J, Olivecrona GK, Ahlberg G, Tornvall P. Technical skills assessment in a coronary angiography simulator for construct validation. Simul Healthc. 2013;8:324–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spiotta AM, Rasmussen PA, Masaryk TJ, Benzel EC, Schlenk R. Simulated diagnostic cerebral angiography in neurosurgical training: a pilot program. J Neurointerv Surg. 2013;5:376–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spiotta AM, Kellogg RT, Vargas J, Chaudry MI, Turk AS, Turner RD. Diagnostic angiography skill acquisition with a secondary curve catheter: phase 2 of a curriculum-based endovascular simulation program. J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7:777–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ernst M, Kriston L, Romero JM, et al. Quantitative evaluation of performance in interventional neuroradiology: an integrated curriculum featuring theoretical and practical challenges. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0148694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lemole GM Jr, Banerjee PP, Luciano C, Neckrysh S, Charbel FT. Virtual reality in neurosurgical education: part-task ventriculostomy simulation with dynamic visual and haptic feedback. Neurosurgery 2007;61:142–8; discussion 8–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Botden SM, Torab F, Buzink SN, Jakimowicz JJ. The importance of haptic feedback in laparoscopic suturing training and the additive value of virtual reality simulation. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1214–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bech B, Lonn L, Falkenberg M, et al. Construct validity and reliability of structured assessment of endoVascular expertise in a simulated setting. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42:539–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Herzeele I, Aggarwal R, Malik I, et al. Validation of video-based skill assessment in carotid artery stenting. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;38:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tedesco MM, Pak JJ, Harris EJ Jr, Krummel TM, Dalman RL, Lee JT. Simulation-based endovascular skills assessment: the future of credentialing? J Vasc Surg. 2008;47:1008–1; discussion 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stolarek I. Procedural and examination skills of first-year house surgeons: a comparison of a simulation workshop versus 6 months of clinical ward experience alone. N Z Med J. 2007;120:U2516.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith CC, Huang GC, Newman LR, et al. Simulation training and its effect on long-term resident performance in central venous catheterization. Simul Healthc. 2010;5:146–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teddy E. Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark B. Frenkel
    • 2
  • Kyle M. Fargen
    • 1
  • Stacey Q. Wolfe
    • 1
  • J. Mocco
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Neurological SurgeryWake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryWake Forest Baptist Medical CenterWinston SalemUSA
  3. 3.Department of Neurological SurgeryMount Sinai HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations