Current Status of Simulation and Training Models in Urological Surgery: A Systematic Review

Journal of Urology

Volumn 196, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 312-320

  Aydin, Abdullatif ^a   Shafi, Ahmed M A ^a   Shamim Khan, Muhammad ^a   Dasgupta, Prokar ^a   Ahmed, Kamran ^a  

^a GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

laparoscopy; models, anatomic, robotics; simulation training; technology assessment, biomedical

Indexed keywords

ANASTOMOSIS; BLADDER TUMOR; CYSTOSCOPY; ENDOUROLOGY; HUMAN; KIDNEY SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LASER SURGERY; PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PYELOPLASTY; REVIEW; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SIMULATION; SURGICAL TRAINING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION; URETERORENOSCOPY; UROLOGIC SURGERY; VALIDATION STUDY; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; EUROPE; NORTH AMERICA; PROCEDURES; SIMULATION TRAINING; UROLOGY;

EUROPE; HUMANS; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; NORTH AMERICA; SIMULATION TRAINING; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; UROLOGY;

EID: 84977589047     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.131     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. 1 Halsted, S.W., The training of the surgeon. Bull John Hopkins Hosp, 15, 1904, 267.
2. 2 Reznick, R.K., MacRae, H., Teaching surgical skills–changes in the wind. N Engl J Med, 355, 2006, 2664.
3. 3 Schout, B.M., Hendrikx, A.J., Scherpbier, A.J., et al. Update on training models in endourology: a qualitative systematic review of the literature between January 1980 and April 2008. Eur Urol, 54, 2008, 1247.
4. 4 Panic, N., Leoncini, E., de Belvis, G., et al. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e83138.
5. 5 McDougall, E.M., Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol, 21, 2007, 244.
6. 6 Van Nortwick, S.S., Lendvay, T.S., Jensen, A.R., et al. Methodologies for establishing validity in surgical simulation studies. Surgery, 147, 2010, 622.
7. 7 Carter, F.J., Schijven, M.P., Aggarwal, R., et al. Consensus guidelines for validation of virtual reality surgical simulators. Surg Endosc, 19, 2005, 1523.
8. 8 Gettman, M.T., Le, C.Q., Rangel, L.J., et al. Development of a standardized curriculum for teaching cystoscopic skills using a computer-based endourologic simulator. Simul Healthc, 4, 2009, 92.
9. 9 Schout, B.M., Muijtjens, A.M., Hendrikx, A.J., et al. Acquisition of flexible cystoscopy skills on a virtual reality simulator by experts and novices. BJU Int, 105, 2010, 234.
10. 10 Schout, B.M., Ananias, H.J., Bemelmans, B.L., et al. Transfer of cysto-urethroscopy skills from a virtual-reality simulator to the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int, 106, 2010, 226.
11. 11 Bowling, C.B., Greer, W.J., Bryant, S.A., et al. Testing and validation of a low-cost cystoscopy teaching model: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol, 116, 2010, 85.
12. 12 Ahmed, K., Aydin, A., Dasgupta, P., et al. A novel cadaveric simulation program in urology. J Surg Educ, 72, 2015, 556.
13. 13 Matsumoto, E.D., Pace, K.T., D'A Honey, R.J., Virtual reality ureteroscopy simulator as a valid tool for assessing endourological skills. Int J Urol, 13, 2006, 896.
14. 14 Brunckhorst, O., Shahid, S., Aydin, A., et al. Simulation-based ureteroscopy skills training curriculum with integration of technical and non-technical skills: a randomised controlled trial. Surg Endosc, 29, 2015, 2728.
15. 15 Matsumoto, E.D., Hamstra, S.J., Radomski, S.B., et al. The effect of bench model fidelity on endourological skills: a randomized controlled study. J Urol, 167, 2002, 1243.
16. 16 Soria, F., Morcillo, E., Sanz, J.L., et al. Description and validation of realistic and structured endourology training model. Am J Clin Exp Urol, 2, 2014, 258.
17. 17 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, 106, 2010, 1753.
18. 18 Zhang, Y., Ou, T.W., Jia, J.G., et al. Novel biologic model for percutaneous renal surgery learning and training in the laboratory. Urology, 72, 2008, 513.
19. 19 Hammond, L., Ketchum, J., Schwartz, B.F., A new approach to urology training: a laboratory model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol, 172, 2004, 1950.
20. 20 Ballaro, A., Briggs, T., Garcia-Montes, F., et al. A computer generated interactive transurethral prostatic resection simulator. J Urol, 162, 1999, 1633.
21. 21 Schout, B.M., Bemelmans, B.L., Martens, E.J., et al. How useful and realistic is the Uro Trainer for training transurethral prostate and bladder tumor resection procedures?. J Urol, 181, 2009, 1297.
22. 22 Shamim Khan, M., Ahmed, K., Gavazzi, A., et al. Development and implementation of centralized simulation training: evaluation of feasibility, acceptability and construct validity. BJU Int, 111, 2013, 518.
23. 23 de Vries, A.H., van Genugten, H.G., Hendrikx, A.J., et al. The Simbla TURBT simulator in urological residency training: from needs analysis to validation. J Endourol, 30, 2016, 580.
24. 24 Angulo, J.C., Arance, I., García-Tello, A., et al. Virtual reality simulator for training on photoselective vaporization of the prostate with 980 nm diode laser and learning curve of the technique. Actas Urol Esp, 38, 2014, 451.
25. 25 Wijn, R.P., Persoon, M.C., Schout, B.M., et al. Virtual reality laparoscopic nephrectomy simulator is lacking in construct validity. J Endourol, 24, 2010, 117.
26. 26 Poniatowski, L.H., Wolf, J.S. Jr., Nakada, S.Y., et al. Validity and acceptability of a high-fidelity physical simulation model for training of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol, 28, 2014, 393.
27. 27 Jiang, C., Liu, M., Chen, J., et al. Construct validity of the chicken crop model in the simulation of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol, 27, 2013, 1032.
28. 28 Tunitsky, E., Murphy, A., Barber, M.D., et al. Development and validation of a ureteral anastomosis simulation model for surgical training. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg, 19, 2013, 346.
29. 29 Sabbagh, R., Chatterjee, S., Chawla, A., et al. Transfer of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy skills from bench model to animal model: a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled study. J Urol, 187, 2012, 1861.
30. 30 Hung, A.J., Ng, C.K., Patil, M.B., et al. Validation of a novel robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy surgical training model. BJU Int, 110, 2012, 870.
31. 31 Chowriappa, A., Raza, S.J., Fazili, A., et al. Augmented-reality-based skills training for robot-assisted urethrovesical anastomosis: a multi-institutional randomised controlled trial. BJU Int, 115, 2015, 336.
32. 32 Kang, S.G., Cho, S., Kang, S.H., et al. The Tube 3 module designed for practicing vesicourethral anastomosis in a virtual reality robotic simulator: determination of face, content, and construct validity. Urology, 84, 2014, 345.
33. 33 Kim, J.Y., Kim, S.B., Pyun, J.H., et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of robotic simulator Tube 3 module. Korean J Urol, 56, 2015, 756.
34. 34 Alemozaffar, M., Narayanan, R., Percy, A.A., et al. Validation of a novel, tissue-based simulator for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol, 28, 2014, 995.
35. 35 Volpe, A., Ahmed, K., Dasgupta, P., et al. Pilot validation study of the European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol, 68, 2015, 292.
36. 36 Cabello, R., González, C., Quicios, C., et al. An experimental model for training in renal transplantation surgery with human cadavers preserved using W. Thiel's embalming technique. J Surg Educ, 72, 2015, 192.
37. 37 Brunckhorst, O., Shahid, S., Aydin, A., et al. The relationship between technical and nontechnical skills within a simulation-based ureteroscopy training environment. J Surg Educ, 72, 2015, 1039.
38. 38 Brewin, J., Tang, J., Dasgupta, P., et al. Full immersion simulation: validation of a distributed simulation environment for technical and non-technical skills training in Urology. BJU Int, 116, 2015, 156.
39. 39 Lee, J.Y., Mucksavage, P., Canales, C., et al. High fidelity simulation based team training in urology: a preliminary interdisciplinary study of technical and nontechnical skills in laparoscopic complications management. J Urol, 187, 2012, 1385.
40. 40 Abdelshehid, C.S., Quach, S., Nelson, C., et al. High-fidelity simulation-based team training in urology: evaluation of technical and nontechnical skills of urology residents during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Surg Educ, 70, 2013, 588.
41. 41 Abboudi, H., Khan, M.S., Aboumarzouk, O., et al. Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators - a systematic review. BJU Int, 111, 2013, 194.
42. 42 Persoon, M.C., van Putten, K., Muijtjens, A.M., et al. Effect of distraction on the performance of endourological tasks: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int, 107, 2011, 1653.
43. 43 Hung, A.J., Patil, M.B., Zehnder, P., et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol, 187, 2012, 630.
44. 44 Sweet, R.M., Beach, R., Sainfort, F., et al. Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association Basic Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery skills curriculum. J Endourol, 26, 2012, 190.
45. 45 Smith, R., Patel, V., Satava, R., Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int J Med Robot, 10, 2014, 379.
46. 46 Xu, S., Perez, M., Perrenot, C., et al. Face, content, construct, and concurrent validity of a novel robotic surgery patient-side simulator: the Xperience™ Team Trainer. Surg Endosc, 2015 Epub ahead of print.
47. 47 Mackay, S., Morgan, P., Datta, V., et al. Practice distribution in procedural skills training: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc, 16, 2002, 957.