Validation of a novel, tissue-based simulator for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 995-1000

  Alemozaffar, Mehrdad ^a   Narayanan, Ramkishen ^b   Percy, Andrew A ^c   Minnillo, Brian B ^d   Steinberg, Peter ^c   Haleblian, George ^e   Gautam, Shiva ^f   Matthes, Kai ^c   Wagner, Andrew A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e Worcester Medical Center   (United States)

^f Department of Medicine ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CONTENT VALIDITY; DISEASE MODEL; FACE VALIDITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTICS; SIMULATOR; SURGEON; SURGICAL TRAINING; SWINE; UROGENITAL SYSTEM; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; ANIMALS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL ILLUSTRATION; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ANATOMIC; OPERATIVE TIME; PROSTATECTOMY; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROBOTICS; SWINE; UROLOGY;

EID: 84905235716     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: 1557900X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0041     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Stitzenberg KB, Wong YN, Nielsen ME, et al. Trends in radical prostatectomy: Centralization, robotics, and access to urologic cancer care. Cancer 2012;118:54-62.
2. Freire MP, Choi WW, Lei Y, et al. Overcoming the learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 2010;37:37-47.
3. Gamboa AJ, Santos RT, Sargent ER, et al. Long-term impact of a robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mini fellowship training program on postgraduate urological practice patterns. J Urol 2009;181:778-782.
4. Guzzo TJ, Gonzalgo ML. Robotic surgical training of the urologic oncologist. Urol Oncol 2009;27:214-217.
5. Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: Recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 2009;182:1126-1132.
6. Steinberg PL, Merguerian PA, Bihrle W 3rd, Seigne JD. The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 2008;72:1068-1072.
7. Wignall GR, Denstedt JD, Preminger GM, et al. Surgical simulation: A urological perspective. J Urol 2008;179:1690-1699.
8. Lucas SM, Gilley DA, Joshi SS, et al. Robotics training program: Evaluation of the satisfaction and the factors that influence success of skills training in a resident robotics curriculum. J Endourol 2011;25:1669-1674.
9. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, et al. Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators-a systematic review. BJU Int 2013;111:194-205.
10. Gavazzi A, Bahsoun AN, Van Haute W, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011;93: 152-156.
11. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 2011;186:1019-1024.
12. Kelly DC, Margules AC, Kundavaram CR, et al. Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator. Urology 2012;79:1068-1072.
13. Kenney PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ, et al. Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 2009;73:1288-1292.
14. Liss MA, Abdelshehid C, Quach S, et al. Validation, correlation, and comparison of the da Vinci trainer™ and the da Vinci surgical skills simulator™ using the Mimic™ software for urologic robotic surgical education. J Endourol 2012;26:1629-1634.
15. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T, et al. Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int 2011;107:1130-1135.
16. Lallas CD, Davis JW; Members Of The Society Of Urologic Robotic Surgeons. Robotic surgery training with commercially available simulation systems in 2011: A current review and practice pattern survey from the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Endourol 2012;26:283-293.
17. Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Syed JR, et al. Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: A multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology 2013;81:767-774.
18. Boon JR, Salas N, Avila D, et al. Construct validity of the pig intestine model in the simulation of laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis: Tools for objective evaluation. J Endourol 2008;22:2713-2716.
19. Chung SD, Tai HC, Lai MK, et al. Novel inanimate training model for urethrovesical anastomosis in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Asian J Surg 2010;33:188-192.
20. Jiang C, Lin T, Zhang C, et al. A training model for laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. J Endourol 2008;22: 1541-1545.
21. Laguna MP, Arce-Alcazar A, Mochtar CA, et al. Construct validity of the chicken model in the simulation of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy suture. J Endourol 2006;20: 69-73.
22. Poulakis V, Witzsch U, De Vries R, et al. Intensive laparoscopic training: The impact of a simplified pelvic-trainer model for the urethrovesical anastomosis on the learning curve. World J Urol 2006;24:331-337.
23. Sotelo RJ, Astigueta JC, Carmona OJ, et al. Chicken gizzard: A new training model for laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. Actas Urol Esp 2009;33:1083-1087.
24. Yang RM, Bellman GC. Laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis: A model to assess surgical competency. J Endourol 2006;20:679-682.
25. McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 2007;21:244-247.
26. Reznick R, Regehr G, MacRae H, et al. Testing technical skill via an innovative "bench station" examination. Am J Surg 1997;173:226-230.