The Simbla TURBT Simulator in Urological Residency Training: From Needs Analysis to Validation

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 580-587

  De Vries, Anna H ^a   Van Genugten, Hilde G J ^a   Hendrikx, Ad J M ^a   Koldewijn, Evert L ^a,b   Schout, Barbara M A ^c,d   Tjiam, Irene M ^e   Van Merriënboer, Jeroen J G ^b   Muijtjens, Arno M M ^f   Wagner, Cordula ^d,g  

^a CATHARINA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c Alrijne Hospital   (Netherlands)

^d NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^e RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^g UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; BLADDER PERFORATION; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSENSUS; EYE HAND COORDINATION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RESIDENCY EDUCATION; SIMBLA TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF A BLADDER TUMOR SIMULATOR; SIMULATOR; TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS; UROLOGICAL SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; LEARNING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; NETHERLANDS; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SIMULATION TRAINING; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS; UROLOGY;

ADULT; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CONSENSUS; CURRICULUM; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; LEARNING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; NETHERLANDS; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SIMULATION TRAINING; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS; UROLOGY; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84969219586     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: 1557900X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2015.0723     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Babjuk M, Burger M, Zigeuner R, et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: Update 2013. Eur Urol 2013;64:639-653.
2. Brausi M, Collette L, Kurth K, et al. Variability in the recurrence rate at first follow-up cystoscopy after TUR in stage Ta T1 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: A combined analysis of seven EORTC studies. Eur Urol 2002; 41:523-531.
3. Mariappan P, Zachou A, Grigor KM, et al. Detrusor muscle in the first, apparently complete transurethral resection of bladder tumour specimen is a surrogate marker of resection quality, predicts risk of early recurrence, and is dependent on operator experience. Eur Urol 2010;57:843-849.
4. Jancke G, Rosell J, Jahnson S. Impact of surgical experience on recurrence and progression after transurethral resection of bladder tumour in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Scand J Urol 2014;48:276-283.
5. Roupret M, Yates DR, Varinot J, et al. The presence of detrusor muscle in the pathological specimen after transurethral resection of primary pT1 bladder tumors and its relationship to operator experience. Can J Urol 2012;19: 6459-6464.
6. Brausi M, Gavioli M, Peracchia Gea. Dedicated teaching programs can improve quality of TUR on non-muscle invasive bladder tumours (NMIBT): Experience of a single institution. Eur Urol Suppl 2008;7:180 (abstract 437).
7. Forster JA, Browning AJ, Paul AB, et al. Surgical simulators in urological training-Views of UK Training Programme Directors. BJU Int 2012;110:776-778.
8. Arora S, Lamb B, Undre S, et al. Framework for incorporating simulation into urology training. BJU Int 2011;107: 806-810.
9. Ahmed K, Jawad M, Abboudi M, et al. Effectiveness of procedural simulation in urology: A systematic review. J Urol 2011;186:26-34.
10. Sweet RM, Hananel D, Lawrenz F. A unified approach to validation, reliability, and education study design for surgical technical skills training. Arch Surg 2010;145: 197-201.
11. Tjiam IM, Berkers CH, Schout BM, et al. Evaluation of the educational value of a virtual reality TURP simulator according to a curriculum-based approach. Simul Healthc 2014; 9:288-294.
12. Schout BM, Bemelmans BL, Martens EJ, et al. How useful and realistic is the uro trainer for training transurethral prostate and bladder tumor resection procedures? J Urol 2009;181:1297-1303; discussion 1303.
13. Ahmed K, Miskovic D, Darzi A, et al. Observational tools for assessment of procedural skills: A systematic review. Am J Surg 2011;202:469-480.e6.
14. McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 2007;21:244-247.
15. Peyton J. Teaching and Learning in Medical Practice. Rickmansworth, UK: Manticore Europe Limited, 1998.
16. Dent J, Harden R. A Practical Guide for Medical Teachers. Dundee, UK: Elsevier Limited, 2005.
17. Schout BM, Hendrikx AJ, Scheele F, et al. Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: A critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc 2010;24: 536-546.
18. Brennan RL. Generalizability Theory. New York: Springer Verlag, 2001.
19. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2009.
20. Sweet R, Kowalewski T, Oppenheimer P, et al. Face, content and construct validity of the University of Washington virtual reality transurethral prostate resection trainer. J Urol 2004;172:1953-1957.
21. Brewin J, Nedas T, Challacombe B, et al. Face, content and construct validation of the first virtual reality laparoscopic nephrectomy simulator. BJU Int 2010;106:850-854.
22. Van Nortwick SS, Lendvay TS, Jensen AR, et al. Methodologies for establishing validity in surgical simulation studies. Surgery 2010;147:622-630.
23. Zevin B, Levy JS, Satava RM, et al. A consensus-based framework for design, validation, and implementation of simulation-based training curricula in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2012;215:580-586.e3.
24. Brewin J, Ahmed K, Challacombe B. An update and review of simulation in urological training. Int J Surg 2014;12: 103-108.
25. Chmarra MK, Dankelman J, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, et al. Force feedback and basic laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 2008;22:2140-2148.
26. Vapenstad C, Hofstad EF, Lango T, et al. Perceiving haptic feedback in virtual reality simulators. Surg Endosc 2013; 27:2391-2397.
27. Bright E, Vine S, Wilson MR, et al. Face validity, construct validity and training benefits of a virtual reality TURP simulator. Int J Surg 2012;10:163-166.
28. Aydin A, Ahmed K, Brewin J, et al. Face and content validation of the prostatic hyperplasia model and holmium laser surgery simulator. J Surg Educ 2014;71:339-344.
29. van Merrienboer JJG, Kirschner PA. Ten Steps to Complex Learning. A Systematic Approach to Four-Component Instructional Design. New York/London: Routledge, 2013, pp. 78-111.
30. Clark R, Feldon D, van Merrienboer J, et al. Cognitive Task Analysis: Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, 2008, pp. 577-593.
31. Yates K, Feldon D. Advancing the practice of cognitive task analysis: a call for taxonomic research. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 2011;12:1464-1536.
32. Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. The science of training: A decade of progress. Annu Rev Psychol 2001;52:471-499.
33. Clark R, Estes F. Cognitive task analysis for training. Int J Educ Res 1996;25:403-417.
34. Gagne E, Yekovich C, Yekovich FR. Cognitive Psychology of School Learning, New York: Harper Collins, 1993.
35. Sullivan ME, Ortega A, Wasserberg N, et al. Assessing the teaching of procedural skills: Can cognitive task analysis add to our traditional teaching methods? Am J Surg 2008; 195:20-23.