A comparison of a homemade central line simulator to commercial models.

Journal Article (Journal Article)

BACKGROUND: Simulation is quickly becoming vital to resident education, but commercially available central line models are costly and little information exists to evaluate their realism. This study compared an inexpensive homemade simulator to three commercially available simulators and rated model characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen physicians, all having placed >50 lines in their lifetime, completed blinded central line insertions on three commercial and one homemade model (made of silicone, tubing, and a pressurized pump system). Participants rated each model on the realism of its ultrasound image, cannulation feel, manometry, and overall. They then ranked the models based on the same variables. Rankings were assessed with Friedman's and post hoc Conover's tests, using alphas 0.05 and 0.008 (Bonferroni corrected), respectively. RESULTS: The models significantly differed (P < 0.0004) in rankings across all dimensions. The homemade model was ranked best on ultrasound image, manometry measurement, cannulation feel, and overall quality by 71%, 67%, 53%, and 77% of raters, respectively. It was found to be statistically superior to the second rated model in all (P < 0.003) except cannulation feel (P = 0.134). Ultrasound image and manometry measurement received the lowest ratings across all models, indicating less realistic simulation. The cost of the homemade model was $400 compared to $1000-$8000 for commercial models. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that an inexpensive, homemade central line model is as good or better than commercially available models. Areas for potential improvement within models include the ultrasound image and ability to appropriately measure manometry of accessed vessels.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Brown, RF; Tignanelli, C; Grudziak, J; Summerlin-Long, S; Laux, J; Kiser, A; Montgomery, SP

Published Date

  • June 15, 2017

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 214 /

Start / End Page

  • 203 - 208

PubMed ID

  • 28624045

Pubmed Central ID

  • PMC8179971

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1095-8673

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.jss.2017.02.071


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States