Training in laparoscopic urology

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 65-70

  Laguna, Ma Pilar ^a   De Reijke, Theodorus M ^a   Wijkstra, Hessel ^a   De La Rosette, Jean ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Competence; Simulators; Training; Urology; Validity

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; OPERATING ROOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SIMULATION; SIMULATOR; SURGICAL RISK; SURGICAL TRAINING; UROLOGIC SURGERY; VALIDATION PROCESS; VIRTUAL REALITY; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; EDUCATION; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; ROBOTICS; SURGERY; TEACHING; UROLOGY;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; ROBOTICS; SURGERY; UROLOGY; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 33744993236     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mou.0000193377.14694.7f     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Gallagher AG, Cates CU. Virtual reality training for the operating room and cardiac catheterization laboratory. Lancet 2004; 364:1538-1540.
2. Bariol SV, Tolley DA. Training and mentoring in urology: the "Lap" generation. BJU Int 2004; 93:913-914.
3. Feldman LS, Sherman V, Fried GM. Using simulators to assess laparoscopic competence: ready for widespread use? Surgery 2004; 135:28-42.
4. Chung SY, Landsittel D, Chon CH, et al. Laparoscopic skills training using a webcam trainer. J Urol 2005; 173:180-183. A presentation of an inexpensive Webcam trainer that compares favorably with two commercialized physical simulators.
5. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance. Ann Surg 2002; 236:458-464.
6. Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, et al. Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg 2004; 91:146-151. An article reproducing the methods and results of the article of Seymour et al. [5]. As the preceding, this article shows in a randomized way the positive transfer of skills from VR to the real cholecystectomy.
7. Munz Y, Kumar BD, Moorthy K, et al. Laparoscopic virtual reality and box trainers. Is one superior to the other? Surg Endosc 2004; 18:485-494.
8. Youngblood PL, Srivastava S, Curet M, et al. Comparison of training on two laparoscopic simulators and assessment of skills transfer to surgical performance. J Am Coll Surg 2005; 200:546-551. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the transfer of training from two different simulators, Tower training and LapSim, on performance on animals.
9. Traxer O, Gettman MT, Napper CA, et al. The impact of intense laparoscopic skills training on the operative performance of urology residents. J Urol 2001; 166:1658-1661.
10. Katz R, Nadu A, Olsson LE, et al. A simplified 5-step model for training laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. J Urol 2003; 169:2041-2044.
11. Nadu A, Olsson LE, Abbou CC. Simple model for training in the laparoscopic vesicourethral running anastomosis. J Endourol 2003; 17:481-484.
12. Taylor GD, Johnson DB, Hogg DC, Cadeddu JA. Development of a renal tumor mimic model for learning minimally invasive nephron sparing surgical techniques. J Urol 2004; 172:382-385.
13. Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, et al. Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills. J Endourol 2004; 18:63-67.
14. Yoannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, et al. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 2002; 60:39-45.
15. Prasad SM, Maniar HS, Chu C, et al. Surgical robotics; impact of motion scaling on task performance. J Am Coll Surg 2004; 199:863-868.
16. Ritchie WP Jr. The measurement of competence. Current plans and future initiatives of the American Board of Surgery 2001; 86:11-15.
17. Hyltander A, Liljegren E, Rhodin PH, Lönroth H. The transfer of basic skills learning in a laparoscopic simulator to the operating room. Surg Endosc 2002; 16:1324-1328.
18. Marks JM, Nussbaum MS, Pritts TA, Scheeres DE. Evaluation of endoscopic and laparoscopic training practices in surgical residency programs. Surg Endosc 2001; 15:1011-1015.
19. Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, et al. Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 2004; 240:518-528. The construct and predictive validity of the McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS), a known dexterity assessment tool, are proven in this paper. Face validity is confirmed by questioning experts using global rating scales and improvement in scores with training in 215 residents provided evidence of the construct validity of this simulator.
20. Lehmann KS, Ritz JP, Maass H, et al. A prospective randomized study to test the transfer of basic psychomotor skills from virtual reality to physical reality in a comparable training setting. Ann Surg 2005; 241:442-449. This article shows the transferability of the novice's acquired skills between two different simulators: a conventional video trainer and a virtual endoscopic surgery trainer. While training had a positive effect on novices, the group of experts in this study showed little improvement, demonstrating that simulation trains surgeons in basic laparoscopic skills that can otherwise be learned with years of practice.
21. Fried GM, Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH. Comparison of laparoscopic performance in vivo with performance measured in laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 1999; 13:1077-1081.
22. Katz R, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Skill assessment of urological laparoscopic surgeons: Can criterion levels of surgical performance be determined using the pelvic box trainer? Eur Urol 2005; 47:482-487. An important paper, and one of the first in urology, validating some aspects of the skills acquisition in a pelvic box trainer.
23. Morrison KB, McLean NJ, Mac Neily AE. Assessing the goals of urology residency training : perceptions of practising urologist in British Columbia. Can J Urol 2003; 10:1917-1923.
24. Laguna MP, Schreuders LC, Rassweiler JJ, et al. on behalf of the members of the board of the ESUT. Development of laparoscopic surgery and training facilities in Europe: results of a survey of the European Society of Uro-Technology (ESUT). Eur Urol 2005; 47:346-351. A wide European survey conducted by the European Society of Uro-Technology in 2003, exploring the trends in Laparoscopic practice, the training in Laparoscopy and the importance of the different training methods in Europe.
25. Abdelshehid CA, Eichel L, Lee D, et al. Current trends in Urologic Laparoscopic Surgery. J Endourol 2005; 19:15-20.
26. Gupta R, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Vallencien G. Feedback from operative performance to improve training program on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2004; 18:836-839.
27. Marguet CG, Young MD, L'Esperance JO, et al. Hand assisted laparoscopy training for postgraduate urologists: the role of mentoring. J Urol 2004; 172:286-289. A description of the role of mentoring in the implementation of the postgraduate program in laparoscopy as well as its value in the introduction of the HAL in a community-based urological practice.
28. Rané A, Anderson C, Shroti N, Srinivasan V, Guru M, Dasgupta P. A training module for laparoscopic urology. J Endourol 2003; 17 (suppl 1):A2 (# MP 01.04).
29. Hollenbeck BK, Seifman BD, Wolf JS. Clinical skills acquisition for hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2004; 171:35-39.
30. Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Terranova S, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy: the transfer of experience to a new academic center. J Endourol 2004; 18:840-843.
31. Farhat W, Khoury A, Bagli G, et al. Mentored retroperitoneal laparoscopic renal surgery in children: a safe approach to learning. BJU Int 2003; 92:617-620.
32. Scheeres DE, Mellinger JD, Brasser BA, Davis AT. Animate advanced laparoscopic courses improve resident operative performance. Am J Surg 2004; 188:157-160.
33. Nakada SY, Hedican SP, Bishoff JT, et al. Expert videotape analysis and critiquing benefit laparoscopic skills training in urologists. JSLS 2004; 8:183-186.