Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 147-151

  Mishra, Shashikant ^a   Jagtap, Jitendra ^a   Sabnis, Ravindra B ^a   Desai, Mahesh R ^a  

^a MULJIBHAI PATEL UROLOGICAL HOSPITAL   (India)

Author keywords

access; PCNL; simulation; skills lab; training

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CURRICULUM; ECHOGRAPHY; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; FLUOROSCOPY; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; LEARNING CURVE; MEDICAL STUDENT; NONHUMAN; OPERATION DURATION; PATIENT CARE; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RESIDENCY EDUCATION; RETROGRADE PYELOGRAPHY; REVIEW; SKILL; SURGICAL TRAINING; TACTILE FEEDBACK; WORKSHOP;

ANIMALS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CURRICULUM; HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; MODELS, ANIMAL; NEPHROSTOMY, PERCUTANEOUS; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84873355611     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835d4e37     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. De la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP, Rassweiler JJ, Conort P. Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy - a critical review. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 994-1001.
2. .Gill JD, Stewart LF, George NJ, Eardley I. Operative experience of urological trainees in the UK. BJU Int 2012; 109:1296-1301. This is the study describing the status of training in PCNL.
3. Schilling D, Gakis G, Walcher U, et al. The learning curve in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: A 1-year retrospective evaluation of a novice and an expert. World J Urol 2011; 29:749-753.
4. Ziaee SA, Sichani MM, Kashi AH, Samzadeh M. Evaluation of the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J 2010 Fall; 7:226-231.
5. Palter VN. Comprehensive training curricula for minimally invasive surgery. J Grad Med Educ 2011; 3:293-298.
6. Kohls-Gatzoulis JA, Regehr G, Hutchison C. Teaching cognitive skills improves learning in surgical skills courses: A blinded, prospective, randomized study. Can J Surg 2004; 47:277-283. (Pubitemid 39387578)
7. Sarker SK, Patel B. Simulation and surgical training. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61:2120-2125. (Pubitemid 350077392)
8. Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP, Darzi A. Framework for systematic training and assessment of technical skills. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204:697-705. (Pubitemid 46428568)
9. Koch M, Fischer MR, Tipold A, Ehlers JP. Can online conference systems improve veterinary education? A study about the capability of online conferencing and its acceptance. J Vet Med Educ 2012 Fall; 39:283-296.
10. Bruyere F, Leroux C, Brunereau L, Lermusiaux P. Rapid prototyping model forpercutaneous nephrolithotomy training. J Endourol 2008; 22:91-96.
11. Radecka E, Brehmer M, Holmgren K, et al. Pelvicaliceal biomodeling as an aidto achieving optimal access in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. J Endourol2006; 20:92-101. (Pubitemid 43357492)
12. Ha?cker A, Wendt-Nordahl G, Honeck P, et al. A biological model to teach percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique with ultrasound- and fluoroscopyguided access. J Endourol 2007; 21:545-550. (Pubitemid 46870241)
13. Hammond L, Ketchum J, Schwartz BF. A new approach to urology training: A laboratory model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 2004; 172 (5 Pt 1):1950-1952. (Pubitemid 39363099)
14. Zhang Y, Ou TW, Jia JG, et al. Novel biologic model for percutaneous renal surgery learning and training in the laboratory. Urology 2008; 72:513-516.
15. Imkamp F, von Klot C, Nagele U, Herrmann TR. New ex-vivo organ model for percutaneous renal surgery. Int Braz J Urol 2011; 37:388-394.
16. Stern J, Zeltser IS, Pearle MS. Percutaneous renal access simulators.J Endourol 2007; 21:270-273. (Pubitemid 46626532)
17. Qiu Z, Yang Y, Zhang Y, Sun YC. Modified biological training model for percutaneous renal surgery with ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011; 124:1286-1289.
18. Mishra S, Kurien A, Ganpule A, et al. Percutaneous renal access training: Content validation comparison between a live porcine and a virtual reality (VR) simulation model. BJU Int 2010; 106:1753-1756.
19. Mishra S, Kurien A, Patel R, et al. Validation of virtual reality simulation for percutaneous renal access training. J Endourol 2010; 24:635-640.
20. Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR, et al. The educational impact of bench model fidelity on the acquisition of technical skill: The use of clinically relevant outcome measures. Ann Surg 2004; 240:374-381. (Pubitemid 38963031)
21. Anastakis DJ, Regehr G, Reznick RK, et al. Assessment of technical skills transfer from the bench training model to the human model. Am J Surg 1999;177:167-170. (Pubitemid 29143016)
22. .Cook DA, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation versus other instructional methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Simul Healthc 2012; 7:308-320.
23. Technology-enhanced simulation training is consistently associated with positive effects for the outcomes of knowledge, skills, and patient-related outcomes.
24. Knudsen BE, Matsumoto ED, Chew BH, et al. A randomized, controlled, prospective study validating the acquisition of percutaneous renal collecting system access skills using a computer based hybrid virtual reality surgical simulator: Phase I. J Urol 2006; 176:2173-2178. (Pubitemid 44633174)
25. Wignall GR, Denstedt JD, Preminger GM, et al. Surgical simulation: A urological perspective. J Urol 2008; 179:1690-1699.
26. Palter VN, Orzech N, Reznick RK, Grantcharov TP. Validation of a structured training and assessment curriculum for technical skill acquisition in minimally invasive surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
27. Stegmann K, Pilz F, Siebeck M, Fischer F. Vicarious learning during simulations: Is it more effective than hands-on training? Med Educ 2012; 46:1001-1008.