Chicken and porcine models for training in laparoscopy and robotics

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 158-162

  Ganpule, Arvind ^a   Chhabra, Jaspreet Singh ^a   Desai, Mahesh ^a  

^a MULJIBHAI PATEL UROLOGICAL HOSPITAL   (India)

Author keywords

Chicken; laparoscopy; porcine; robotic; simulator

Indexed keywords

CHICKEN MODEL; HUMAN; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SINGLE SITE SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; NATURAL ORIFICE TRANSLUMINAL ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; NEPHRECTOMY; NONHUMAN; PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; PORCINE MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROSTATECTOMY; PYELOPLASTY; REVIEW; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; SIMULATION; SIMULATOR; SURGICAL TRAINING; VIRTUAL REALITY; ANATOMIC MODEL; ANIMAL; ANIMAL MODEL; CHICKEN; DISSECTION; EDUCATION; LAPAROSCOPY; PIG; SUTURING METHOD; UROLOGIC SURGERY; UROLOGY;

ANIMALS; CHICKENS; DISSECTION; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MODELS, ANATOMIC; MODELS, ANIMAL; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; SWINE; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; UROLOGY;

EID: 84922405166     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000139     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Cameron JL. William Stewart Halsted. Our surgical heritage. Ann Surg 1997; 225:445-458.
2. Kerr B, O'Leary JP. The training of the surgeon: Dr Halsted's greatest legacy. Am Surg 1999; 65:1101-1102.
3. Krummel TM. Surgical simulation, virtual reality: the coming revolution. Ann Surg 1998; 228:635-637.
4. Ziv A, Wolpe PR, Small SD, Glick S. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Acad Med 2003; 78:783-788.
5. Le CQ, Lightner DJ, VanderLei L, et al. The current role of medical simulation in american urological residency training programs: an assessment by program directors. J Urol 2007; 177:288e91.
6. Forster JA, Browning AJ, Paul AB, Biyani CS. Surgical simulators in urological training-views of UK Training Programme Directors. BJU international 2012; 110:776-778.
7. Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ, Marks JM, Fried GM. FLS and FES: comprehensive models of training and assessment. Surg Clin North Am 2010; 90:535-558.
8. Ahmed K, Amer T, Challacombe B, et al. How to develop a simulation programme in urology. BJU Int 2011; 108:1698e702.
9. Rassweiler J, Henkel TO, Potempa DM, et al. Transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: training, technique and results. J Endourol 1993; 7:505-516.
10. Gettman MT, Lotan Y, Napper CA, Cadeddu JA. Transvaginal laparoscopic nephrectomy: development and feasibility in the porcine model. Urology 2002; 59:446-450.
11. West DA, Rallo MC, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic v laparoscopy-assisted donor nephrectomy in the porcine model. J Endourol 1999; 13:513-515.
12. Kerbl K, Figenshau RS, Clayman RV, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: laboratory and clinical experience. J Endourol 1993; 7:23-26.
13. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993; 150:1795-1799.
14. McDougall EM, Elashry OM, Clayman RV, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the animal model. JSLS 1997; 1:113-118.
15. Fu B, Zhang X, Lang B, et al. New model for training in laparoscopic dismembered ureteropyeloplasty. J Endourol 2007; 21:1381-1385.
16. Yang B, Zhang ZS, Xiao L, et al. A novel training model for retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2010; 24:1345-1349.
17. Teber D, Guven S, Yaycioglu O, et al. Single-knot running suture anastomosis (one-knot pyeloplasty) for laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: training model on a porcine bladder and clinical results. Int Urol Nephrol 2010; 42:609-614.
18. Ramachandran A, Kurien A, Patil P, et al. A novel training model for laparoscopic pyeloplasty using chicken crop. J Endourol 2008; 22:725-728.
19. Chun J, Mo Liu, Jia Chen, et al. Construct validity of the chicken crop model in the simulation of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2013; 27:1032-1036.
20. Dáz-Guëmes Martń-Portugués I, Hernández-Hurtado L, Usón-Casaús J, et al. Ureteral obstruction swine model through laparoscopy and single port for training on laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Int J Med Sci 2013; 10:1047-1052.
21. Chiu AW, Chen MT, Huang WJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy in a porcine model. Eur Urol 1992; 22:250-254.
22. Rassweiler JJ, Henkel TO, Potempa DM, et al. Laparoscopic training in urology: an essential principle of laparoscopic interventions in the retro peritoneum. Urologe A 1993; 32:393-402.
23. McDougall EM, Clayman RV, Chandhoke PS, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in the pig model. J Urol 1993; 149:1633-1636.
24. Barret E, Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in the pig: comparison of three hemostasis techniques. J Endourol 2001; 15:307-312.
25. Ames CD, Vanlangendonck R, Morrissey K, et al. Evaluation of surgical models for renal collecting system closure during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Urology 2005; 66:451-454.
26. Yair Lotan, Gettman Matthew T, Guy Lindberg, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using holmium laser in a porcine model. JSLS 2004; 8:51-55.
27. Hua Xie, Khajanchee YS, Shaffer Brian S. Chitosan hemostatic dressing for renal parenchymal wound sealing in a porcine model: implications for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy technique. JSLS 2008; 12:18-24.
28. Eun D, Bhandari A, Boris R, et al. A novel technique for creating solid renal pseudotumors and renal vein-inferior vena caval pseudothrombus in a porcine and cadaveric model. J Urol 2008; 180:1510-1514.
29. Dong-Hun Koo, Yong Hyun Park, Chang Wook Jeong, et al. Feasibility of laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy in a porcine model. Korean J Urol 2011; 52:44-48.
30. Deane LA, Lee HJ, Box GN, et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J Endourol 2008; 22:947-952.
31. Hung AJ, Ng CK, Patil MB, et al. Validation of a novel robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy surgical training model. BJU Int 2012; 110:870-874.
32. Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, et al. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 2005; 190:107-113.
33. Hung AJ, Jayaratna IS, Teruya K, et al. Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int 2013; 112:864-871.
34. Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, et al. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 2012; 187:247-252.
35. Cadeddu J, Fernandez R, Desai M, et al. Novel magnetically guided intraabdominal camera to facilitate laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: initial human experience. Surg Endosc 2009; 23:1894-1899.
36. Raman J, Bergs R, Fernandez R, et al. Complete transvaginal NOTES nephrectomy using magnetically anchored instrumentation. J Endourol 2009; 23:367-371.
37. Best SL, Bergs R, Scott DJ, et al. Solo surgeon laparoendoscopic single site nephrectomy facilitated by new generation magnetically anchored and guided systems camera. J Endourol 2012; 26:214-218.
38. Woong Kyu Han, Tan Yung K, Olweny Ephrem O, et al. Comparison between magnetic anchoring and guidance system camera-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery nephrectomy and conventional laparoendoscopic singlesite surgery nephrectomy in a porcine model: focus on ergonomics and workload profiles. J Endourol 2013; 27:490-496.
39. Wilson CH, Sanni A, Rix DA, Soomro NA. Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; CD006124.
40. He B, Musk GC, Mou L, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for orthotopic kidney transplant in the pig model. J Surg Res 2013; 184:1096-1101.
41. 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.
42. Boon JR, Salas N, Avila N, 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.