Simulation-based training and assessment in urological surgery

Nature Reviews Urology

Volumn 13, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 503-519

  Aydin, Abdullatif ^a   Raison, Nicholas ^a   Khan, Muhammad Shamim ^a   Dasgupta, Prokar ^a   Ahmed, Kamran ^a  

^a GUY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CADAVER; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CURRICULUM; ENDOUROLOGY; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE HYPERTROPHY; REVIEW; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SIMULATION TRAINING; TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION; UROLITHIASIS; UROLOGIC SURGERY; VIRTUAL REALITY; ANIMAL; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; EDUCATION; LAPAROSCOPY; PROCEDURES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; STANDARDS; UROLOGY;

ANIMALS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; UROLOGY; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84983458047     PISSN: 17594812     EISSN: 17594820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.147     Document Type: Review

References (196)

1. Coxon, J. P., Pattison, S. H., Parks, J. W., Stevenson, P. K. & Kirby, R. S. Reducing human error in urology: lessons from aviation. BJU Int. 91, 1-3 (2003).
2. McGreevy, J. M. The aviation paradigm and surgical education. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 201, 110-117 (2005).
3. Reznick, R. K. & MacRae, H. Teaching surgical skills-changes in the wind. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 2664-2669 (2006).
4. Torkington, J., Smith, S. G., Rees, B. I. & Darzi, A. Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task. Surg. Endosc 15, 1076-1079 (2001).
5. Andreatta, P. B. et al. Laparoscopic skills are improved with LapMentor training: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann. Surg. 243, 854-860 (2006).
6. Sedlack, R. E. & Kolars, J. C. Computer simulator training enhances the competency of gastroenterology fellows at colonoscopy: results of a pilot study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 99, 33-37 (2004).
7. Schout, B. M., Hendrikx, A. J., Scherpbier, A. J. & Bemelmans, B. L. Update on training models in endourology: a qualitative systematic review of the literature between January 1980 and April 2008. Eur. Urol. 54, 1247-1261 (2008).
8. McDougall, E. M. Validation of surgical simulators. J. Endourol. 21, 244-247 (2007).
9. Van Nortwick, S. S. et al. Methodologies for establishing validity in surgical simulation studies. Surgery 147, 622-630 (2010).
10. Brewin, J., Ahmed, K. & Challacombe, B. An update and review of simulation in urological training. Int. J. Surg. 12, 103-108 (2014).
11. Gettman, M. T. et al. Analysis of a computer based simulator as an educational tool for cystoscopy: subjective and objective results. J. Urol. 179, 267-271 (2008).
12. Gettman, M. T. et al. Development of a standardized curriculum for teaching cystoscopic skills using a computer-based endourologic simulator. Simul. Healthcare: J. Soc. Simul. Healthcare 4, 92-97 (2009).
13. Dolmans, V. E. et al. The virtual reality endourologic simulator is realistic and useful for educational purposes. J. Endourol. 23, 1175-1181 (2009).
14. Shamim Khan, M. et al. Development and implementation of centralized simulation training: evaluation of feasibility, acceptability and construct validity. BJU Int. 111, 518-523 (2013).
15. Shah, J., Montgomery, B., Langley, S. & Darzi, A. Validation of a flexible cystoscopy course. BJU Int. 90, 833-835 (2002).
16. Shah, J. & Darzi, A. Virtual reality flexible cystoscopy: a validation study. BJU Int. 90, 828-832 (2002).
17. Schout, B. M. et al. Transfer of cysto-urethroscopy skills from a virtual-reality simulator to the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 106, 226-231 (2010).
18. Schout, B. M. et al. Acquisition of flexible cystoscopy skills on a virtual reality simulator by experts and novices. BJU Int. 105, 234-239 (2010).
19. Persoon, M. C. et al. Effect of distraction on the performance of endourological tasks: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 107, 1653-1657 (2011).
20. Zhang, Y. et al. Effectiveness of the UroMentor virtual reality simulator in the skill acquisition of flexible cystoscopy. Chin. Med. J. 126, 2079-2082 (2013).
21. Michel, M. S., Knoll, T., Kohrmann, K. U. & Alken, P. The URO Mentor: development and evaluation of a new computer-based interactive training system for virtual life-like simulation of diagnostic and therapeutic endourological procedures. BJU Int. 89, 174-177 (2002).
22. Watterson, J. D., Beiko, D. T., Kuan, J. K. & Denstedt, J. D. Randomized prospective blinded study validating acquistion of ureteroscopy skills using computer based virtual reality endourological simulator. J. Urol. 168, 1928-1932 (2002).
23. Mishra, S. et al. Comparative performance of highfidelity training models for flexible ureteroscopy: are all models effective? Indian J. Urol. 27, 451-456 (2011).
24. Wilhelm, D. M., Ogan, K., Roehrborn, C. G., Cadeddu, J. A. & Pearle, M. S. Assessment of basic endoscopic performance using a virtual reality simulator. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 195, 675-681 (2002).
25. Knoll, T. et al. Ureterorenoscopy: Impact of simulatortraining on clinical skills. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 2,199 (2003).
26. Jacomides, L., Ogan, K., Cadeddu, J. A. & Pearle, M. S. Use of a virtual reality simulator for ureteroscopy training. J. Urol. 171, 320-323 (2004).
27. Knoll, T., Trojan, L., Haecker, A., Alken, P. & Michel, M. S. Validation of computer-based training in ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int. 95, 1276-1279 (2005).
28. Cai, J. L. et al. Proficiency of virtual reality simulator training in flexible retrograde ureteroscopy renal stone management. Chin. Med. J. 126, 3940-3943 (2013).
29. Ogan, K. et al. Virtual ureteroscopy predicts ureteroscopic proficiency of medical students on a cadaver. J. Urol. 172, 667-671 (2004).
30. Chou, D. S., Abdelshehid, C., Clayman, R. V. & McDougall, E. M. Comparison of results of virtualreality simulator and training model for basic ureteroscopy training. J. Endourol. 20, 266-271 (2006).
31. Matsumoto, E. D. et al. Assessment of basic human performance resources predicts performance of ureteroscopy. Am. J. Surg. 191, 817-820 (2006).
32. Knudsen, B. E. 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. 176, 2173-2178 (2006).
33. Ganpule, A. P., Mishra, S., Sabnis, R. B., Muthu, V. & Desai, M. R. Evaluation and validation of virtual reality (VR) based simulation to develop endourological percutaneous renal access technique for urological trainees. J. Urol. 181, 491-492 (2009).
34. Patel, D. et al. Assessing and developing percutaneous renal access skills to trainees using the state of the art PERC mentor simulation trainer. J. Urol. 183, (Suppl. 1) e514 (2010).
35. Papatsoris, A. G. et al. Use of a virtual reality simulator to improve percutaneous renal access skills: a prospective study in urology trainees. Urol. Intern. 89, 185-190 (2012).
36. Mishra, S. et al. Validation of virtual reality simulation for percutaneous renal access training. J. Endourol. 24, 635-640 (2010).
37. Jagtap, J. Surgical skills lab for percutaneous renal access training: Content validation comparison between live porcine and VR simulation model. J. Urol. 183, e515 (2010).
38. Mishra, S. et al. Percutaneous renal access training: content validation comparison between a live porcine and a virtual reality (VR) simulation model. BJU Int. 106, 1753-1756 (2010).
39. Ballaro, A. et al. A computer generated interactive transurethral prostatic resection simulator. J. Urol. 162, 1633-1635 (1999).
40. Kallstrom, R., Hjertberg, H., Kjolhede, H. & Svanvik, J. Use of a virtual reality, real-time, simulation model for the training of urologists in transurethral resection of the prostate. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 39, 313-320 (2005).
41. Kallstrom, R., Hjertberg, H. & Svanvik, J. Construct validity of a full procedure, virtual reality, real-time, simulation model for training in transurethral resection of the prostate. J. Endourol. 24, 109-115 (2010).
42. Kallstrom, R., Hjertberg, H. & Svanvik, J. Impact of virtual reality-simulated training on urology residents' performance of transurethral resection of the prostate. J. Endourol. 24, 1521-1528 (2010).
43. Rashid, H. H. et al. The virtual reality transurethral prostatic resection trainer: evaluation of discriminate validity. J. Urol. 177, 2283-2286 (2007).
44. Sweet, R., Kowalewski, T., Oppenheimer, P., Weghorst, S. & Satava, R. Face, content and construct validity of the University of Washington virtual reality transurethral prostate resection trainer. J. Urol. 172, 1953-1957 (2004).
45. Hudak, S. J., Landt, C. L., Hernandez, J. & Soderdahl, D. W. External validation of a virtual reality transurethral resection of the prostate simulator. J. Urol. 184, 2018-2022 (2010).
46. Zhu, H. et al. Virtual reality simulator for training urologists on transurethral prostatectomy. Chin. Med. J. 126, 1220-1223 (2013).
47. Bright, E., Vine, S., Wilson, M. R., Masters, R. S. & McGrath, J. S. Face validity, construct validity and training benefits of a virtual reality TURP simulator. Int. J. Surg. 10, 163-166 (2012).
48. Kishore, T. A. et al. Task deconstruction facilitates acquisition of transurethral resection of prostate skills on a virtual reality trainer. J. Endourol. Soc. 23, 665-668 (2009).
49. Kuronen-Stewart, C. et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: simulation-based training curriculum and validation. Urology 86, 639-646 (2015).
50. Angulo, J. C. 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, 451-458 (2014).
51. Saredi, G. et al. Evaluation of the learning curve for thulium laser enucleation of the prostate with the aid of a simulator tool but without tutoring: comparison of two surgeons with different levels of endoscopic experience. BMC Urol. 15, 49 (2015).
52. Sanchez-Gomez, L. M., Polo-deSantos, M., Gomez-Sancha, F. & Luengo-Matos, S. Efficacy and safety of the urolift(R) system for the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia symptoms: systematic review. Actas Urol. Esp. 39, 311-319 (2015).
53. McVary, K. T. et al. Minimally invasive prostate convective water vapor energy ablation: a multicenter, randomized, controlled study for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J. Urol. 195, 1529-1538 (2016).
54. Shen, Y. et al. Laser surgery simulation platform: toward full-procedure training and rehearsal for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) therapy. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 163, 574-580 (2011).
55. Herlemann, A. et al. Virtual reality systems in urologic surgery: an evaluation of the Green Light simulator. Eur. Urol. 64, 687-688 (2013).
56. Aydin, A. et al. Validation of the Green Light Simulator and development of a training curriculum for photoselective vaporisation of the prostate. BJU Int. 115, 994-1003 (2015).
57. Noureldin, Y. et al. Incorporation of the Green Light-SIM Simulator at the Annual Quebec Urology Objective Structured Clinical Examinations. Urology 84 (Suppl. 1), S139 (2014).
58. Shen, Y. et al. Virtual trainer for intra-detrusor injection of botulinum toxin to treat urinary incontinence. Studies Health Technol. Inform. 173, 457-462 (2012).
59. Fuoco, M., U. T., Siemens, R., Fichtinger, G. & Beiko, D. Percutaneous nephrostomy for dummies: electromagnetic needle guidance with tracked ultrasound snapshots in a simulation model. J. Urol. 191 (Suppl.1) 191 (2014).
60. Ungi, T. et al. Perk Tutor: an open-source training platform for ultrasound-guided needle insertions. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 59, 3475-3481 (2012).
61. Aydin, A. et al. Validation of a Dry-lab Training Model for Cystoscopy and Delivery of Intravesical Botolinum-Toxin Injections. J. Endourol. 29, A80-81 (2015).
62. Soria, F. et al. Development and Validation of a Novel Skills Training Model for Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. J. Endourol. 29, 1276-1281 (2015).
63. Matsumoto, E. D., Hamstra, S. J., Radomski, S. B. & Cusimano, M. D. The effect of bench model fidelity on endourological skills: a randomized controlled study. J. Urol. 167, 1243-1247 (2002).
64. Matsumoto, E. D., Hamstra, S. J., Radomski, S. B. & Cusimano, M. D. A novel approach to endourological training: training at the Surgical Skills Center. J. Urol. 166, 1261-1266 (2001).
65. Brehmer, M. & Tolley, D. Validation of a bench model for endoscopic surgery in the upper urinary tract. Eur. Urol. 42, 175-179; discussion 180 (2002).
66. Brehmer, M. & Swartz, R. Training on bench models improves dexterity in ureteroscopy. Eur. Urol. 48, 458-463 (2005).
67. Cloutier, J. & Traxer, O. Do high-fidelity training models translate into better skill acquisition for an endourologist? Curr. Opin. Urol. 25, 143-152 (2015).
68. Villa, L. et al. Comprehensive flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) simulator for training in endourology: the K-box model. Cent. Eur. J. Urol. http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2016.710 (2016).
69. Villa, V. et al. Preliminary Results of an Intensive Training On A Simulation Model For Flexible Ureteroscopy in Medical Students: The Kidney-Box (K-BOX) Model. J Endourol. A78-A79 (2015).
70. Blankstein, U. et al. Simulation-based flexible ureteroscopy training using a novel ureteroscopy parttask trainer. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 9, 331-335 (2015).
71. White, M. A., Dehaan, A. P., Stephens, D. D., Maes, A. A. & Maatman, T. J. Validation of a high fidelity adult ureteroscopy and renoscopy simulator. J. Urol. 183, 673-677 (2010).
72. Wignall, G. R. et al. Surgical simulation: a urological perspective. J. Urol. 179, 1690-1699 (2008).
73. Hoznek, A. et al. Simulation training in video-assisted urologic surgery. Curr. Urol. Rep. 7, 107-113 (2006).
74. Maldonado-Alcaraz, E. et al. Use of a novel radiationfree fluoroscopy emulator (iPERC) to improve surgical skills in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J. Endourol. 29, A139-A140 (2015).
75. Veneziano, D., Smith, A., Reihsen, T., Speich, J. & Sweet, R. M. The SimPORTAL fluoro-less C-arm trainer: an innovative device for percutaneous kidney access. J. Endourol. 29, 240-245 (2015).
76. Chrouser, K., Marsh, B. & Sweet, R. Percutaneous access skill improvement after the aua pcnl training course using the simportal fluoroless c-arm trainer. J. Urol. 195, e213 (2016).
77. Brewin, J., Ahmed, K., Khan, M. S., Jaye, P. & Dasgupta, P. Face, content, and construct validation of the Bristol TURP trainer. J. Surg. Educ. 71, 500-505 (2014).
78. de Vries, A. H. et al. The Simbla TURBT Simulator in Urological Residency Training: From Needs Analysis to Validation. J. Endourol, http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0723 (2015).
79. Kinoshita, H., Mishima, T. & Matsuda, T. Developing the Real Type Simulation for HoLEP (Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate). J. Endourol. 28, A126 (2014).
80. Aydin, A. et al. Face and content validation of the prostatic hyperplasia model and holmium laser surgery simulator. J. Surg. Educ. 71, 339-344 (2014).
81. Bruyere, F., Leroux, C., Brunereau, L. & Lermusiaux, P. Rapid prototyping model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy training. J. Endourol. Soc. 22, 91-96 (2008).
82. Schout, B. et al. Teaching diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of bladder pathology using a newly developed pig bladder model. J. Endourol. 22, 2547-2553 (2008).
83. Grimsby, G. M. et al. Urologic surgical simulation: an endoscopic bladder model. Simul. Healthcare 6, 352-355 (2011).
84. Soria, F. et al. Description and validation of realistic and structured endourology training model. Am. J. Clin. Exp. Urol. 2, 258-265 (2014).
85. Hu, D., Liu, T. & Wang, X. Flexible ureteroscopy training for surgeons using isolated porcine kidneys in vitro. BMC Urol. 15, 71 (2015).
86. Earp, P. P. Percutaneous renal surgery-new model for learning and training. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 29, 151-154 (2003).
87. Strohmaier, W. L. & Giese, A. Ex vivo training model for percutaneous renal surgery. Urol. Res. 33, 191-193 (2005).
88. Zhang, Y. et al. Novel biologic model for percutaneous renal surgery learning and training in the laboratory. Urology 72, 513-516 (2008).
89. Hacker, A. et al. A biological model to teach percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique with ultrasound-and fluoroscopy-guided access. J. Endourol. Soc. 21, 545-550 (2007).
90. Hammond, L., Ketchum, J. & Schwartz, B. F. A new approach to urology training: a laboratory model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J. Urol. 172, 1950-1952 (2004).
91. Hammond, L., Ketchum, J. & Schwartz, B. F. Accreditation council on graduate medical education technical skills competency compliance: urologic surgical skills. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 201, 454-457 (2005).
92. Ahmed, K., Aydin, A., Dasgupta, P., Khan, M. S. & McCabe, J. E. A. Novel Cadaveric Simulation Program in Urology. J. Surg. Educ. 72, 556-565 (2015).
93. Huri, E. et al. Simulation of RIRS in soft cadavers: a novel training model by the Cadaveric Research On Endourology Training (CRET) Study Group. World J. Urol. 34, 741 (2015).
94. Page, T. The use of fresh fozen cadavers for the teaching of Holmium laser enucleation of prostate, Thulium prostate resection and high power KTP laser vapourisation. BJU Int. 115, 52 (2015).
95. Bowling, C. B. et al. Testing and validation of a lowcost cystoscopy teaching model: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetr. Gynecol. 116, 85-91 (2010).
96. Rai, B. et al. Face validity study of cadavers using thiel method of embalming for endoscopic surgery in urology. Urology 84 (Suppl. 1), S137 (2014).
97. Mains, E. A. A. et al. Ureterorenoscopy Training on Cadavers Embalmed by Thiel's Method: Simulation or a Further Step towards Reality? Initial Report. J. Endourol. 29, A140 (2015).
98. Healy, S. E. et al. Thiel embalming method for cadaver preservation: a review of new training model for urologic skills training. Urology 85, 499-504 (2015).
99. Dehabadi, M., Fernando, B. & Berlingieri, P. The use of simulation in the acquisition of laparoscopic suturing skills. Int. J. Surg. 12, 258-268 (2014).
100. Brewin, J. et al. Face, content and construct validation of the first virtual reality laparoscopic nephrectomy simulator. BJU Int. 106, 850-854 (2010).
101. Wijn, R. P. et al. Virtual reality laparoscopic nephrectomy simulator is lacking in construct validity. J. Endourol. 24, 117-122 (2010).
102. Zhang, A., Hunerbein, M., Dai, Y., Schlag, P. M. & Beller, S. Construct validity testing of a laparoscopic surgery simulator (Lap Mentor): evaluation of surgical skill with a virtual laparoscopic training simulator. Surg. Endosc. 22, 1440-1444 (2008).
103. McDougall, E. M. et al. Construct validity testing of a laparoscopic surgical simulator. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 202, 779-787 (2006).
104. Ayodeji, I. D., Schijven, M., Jakimowicz, J. & Greve, J. W. Face validation of the Simbionix LAP Mentor virtual reality training module and its applicability in the surgical curriculum. Surg. Endosc. 21, 1641-1649 (2007).
105. Woodrum, D. T. et al. Construct validity of the LapSim laparoscopic surgical simulator. Am. J. Surg. 191, 28-32 (2006).
106. Duffy, A. J. et al. Construct validity for the LAPSIM laparoscopic surgical simulator. Surg. Endosc. 19, 401-405 (2005).
107. Alwaal, A. et al. Transfer of skills on LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator into the operating room in urology. Urol. Ann. 7, 172-176 (2015).
108. Fernandez, A. et al. First prize: a phantom model as a teaching modality for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J. Endourol. 26, 1-5 (2012).
109. Lee, J. Y., Mucksavage, P., Canales, C., McDougall, E. M. & Lin, S. High fidelity simulation based team training in urology: a preliminary interdisciplinary study of technical and nontechnical skills in laparoscopic complications management. J. Urol. 187, 1385-1391 (2012).
110. Abdelshehid, C. S. 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, 588-595 (2013).
111. Poniatowski, L. H. et al. Validity and acceptability of a high-fidelity physical simulation model for training of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J. Endourol. 28, 393-398 (2014).
112. Cheung, C. L., Looi, T., Lendvay, T. S., Drake, J. M. & Farhat, W. A. Use of 3-dimensional printing technology and silicone modeling in surgical simulation: development and face validation in pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J. Surg. Educ. 71, 762-767 (2014).
113. Tunitsky, E., Murphy, A., Barber, M. D., Simmons, M. & Jelovsek, J. E. Development and validation of a ureteral anastomosis simulation model for surgical training. Female Pelv. Med. Reconstr. Surg. 19, 346-351 (2013).
114. Sabbagh, R. et al. Transfer of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy skills from bench model to animal model: a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled study. J. Urol. 187, 1861-1866 (2012).
115. van Velthoven, R. F. & Hoffmann, P. Methods for laparoscopic training using animal models. Curr. Urol. Rep. 7, 114-119 (2006).
116. Molinas, C. R., Binda, M. M., Mailova, K. & Koninckx, P. R. The rabbit nephrectomy model for training in laparoscopic surgery. Hum. Reprod. 19, 185-190 (2004).
117. Jiang, C. et al. Construct validity of the chicken crop model in the simulation of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J. Endourol. 27, 1032-1036 (2013).
118. Laguna, M. P. et al. Construct validity of the chicken model in the simulation of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy suture. J. Endourol. 20, 69-73 (2006).
119. Katz, R. et al. A simplified 5-step model for training laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. J. Urol. 169, 2041-2044 (2003).
120. Nadu, A., Olsson, L. E. & Abbou, C. C. Simple model for training in the laparoscopic vesicourethral running anastomosis. J. Endourol. 17, 481-484 (2003).
121. Yang, R. M. & Bellman, G. C. Laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis: a model to assess surgical competency. J. Endourol. 20, 679-682 (2006).
122. Sotelo, R. J., Astigueta, J. C., Carmona, O. J., De Andrade, R. J. & Moreira, O. E. Chicken gizzard: a new training model for laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. Actas Urol. Espanolas 33, 1083-1087 (2009).
123. Teber, D. 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. 42, 609-614 (2010).
124. Boon, J. R. et al. Construct validity of the pig intestine model in the simulation of laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis: tools for objective evaluation. J. Endourol. 22, 2713-2716 (2008).
125. Jiang, C. et al. A training model for laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. J. Endourol. 22, 1541-1545 (2008).
126. Hung, A. J. et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J. Urol. 186, 1019-1024 (2011).
127. Liss, M. A. et al. Validation, correlation, and comparison of the da Vinci trainer" and the daVinci surgical skills simulator" using the Mimic" software for urologic robotic surgical education. J. Endourol. 26, 1629-1634 (2012).
128. Alzahrani, T. et al. Validation of the da Vinci Surgical Skill Simulator across three surgical disciplines: a pilot study. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 7, E520-529 (2013).
129. Kelly, D. C. et al. Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator. Urology 79, 1068-1072 (2012).
130. Lyons, C. et al. Which skills really matter? proving face, content, and construct validity for a commercial robotic simulator. Surg. Endosc. 27, 2020-2030 (2013).
131. Connolly, M., Seligman, J., Kastenmeier, A., Goldblatt, M. & Gould, J. C. Validation of a virtual reality-based robotic surgical skills curriculum. Surg. Endosc. 28, 1691-1694 (2014).
132. Finnegan, K. T., Meraney, A. M., Staff, I. & Shichman, S. J. da Vinci Skills Simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. Urology 80, 330-335 (2012).
133. Hung, A. J. et al. Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int. 112, 864-871 (2013).
134. Hung, A. J. et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J. Urol. 187, 630-637 (2012).
135. Lendvay, T. S., Casale, P., Sweet, R. & Peters, C. Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator. J. Robot. Surg. 2, 145-149 (2008).
136. Kenney, P. A., Wszolek, M. F., Gould, J. J., Libertino, J. A. & Moinzadeh, A. Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 73, 1288-1292 (2009).
137. Sethi, A. S., Peine, W. J., Mohammadi, Y. & Sundaram, C. P. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J. Endourol. 23, 503-508 (2009).
138. Korets, R. et al. Validating the use of the Mimic dV-trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. Urology 78, 1326-1330 (2011).
139. Lee, J. Y. et al. Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator-role as an assessment tool? J. Urol. 187, 998-1002 (2012).
140. Perrenot, C. et al. The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer((R)) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg. Endosc. 26, 2587-2593 (2012).
141. Egi, H. et al. Face, content and concurrent validity of the Mimic(R) dV-Trainer for robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: a prospective study. European surgical research. Europaische Chirurgische Forschung. Recherches Chirurgicales Europeennes 50, 292-300 (2013).
142. Schreuder, H. W. et al. Validation of a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Sci. World J. 2014, 507076 (2014).
143. Kang, S. G. 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, 345-350 (2014).
144. Lee, B. R. et al. A novel method of surgical instruction: international telementoring. World J. Urol. 16, 367-370 (1998).
145. Whitehurst, S. V. et al. Comparison of two simulation systems to support robotic-assisted surgical training: a pilot study (Swine model). J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 22, 483-488 (2015).
146. Lerner, M. A., Ayalew, M., Peine, W. J. & Sundaram, C. P. Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? J. Endourol. 24, 467-472 (2010).
147. Cho, J. S. et al. Virtual reality training improves da Vinci performance: a prospective trial. Journal of laparoendoscopic and advanced surgical techniques. J. Laparoendoc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 23, 992-998 (2013).
148. Kim, J. Y. et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of robotic simulator Tube 3 module. Kor. J. Urol. 56, 756-761 (2015).
149. Seixas-Mikelus, S. A. et al. Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology 76, 357-360 (2010).
150. Seixas-Mikelus, S. A. et al. Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int. 107, 1130-1135 (2011).
151. Chowriappa, A. J. et al. Development and validation of a composite scoring system for robot-assisted surgical training-the Robotic Skills Assessment Score. J. Surg. Res. 185, 561-569 (2013).
152. Raza, S. J. et al. Construct validation of the key components of Fundamental Skills of Robotic Surgery (FSRS) curriculum-a multi-institution prospective study. J. Surg. Educ. 71, 316-324 (2014).
153. Stegemann, A. P. et al. Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology 81, 767-774 (2013).
154. Whittaker, G. et al. Validation of the Roboti X Mentor Robotic Surgery Simulator. J. Endourol. 30, 338-346 (2016).
155. Gavazzi, A. et al. Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 93, 152-156 (2011).
156. Balasubramanian, K., Kalsi, P., Greenough, C. G. & Kuskoor Seetharam, M. P. Reliability of clinical assessment in diagnosing cauda equina syndrome. Br. J. Neurosurg. 24, 383-386 (2010).
157. van der Meijden, O. A., Broeders, I. A. & Schijven, M. P. The SEP "robot": a valid virtual reality robotic simulator for the Da Vinci Surgical System? Surg. Technol. Int. 19, 51-58 (2010).
158. McDonough, P. S., Tausch, T. J., Peterson, A. C. & Brand, T. C. Initial validation of the ProMIS surgical simulator as an objective measure of robotic task performance. J. Robot. Surg. 5, 195-199 (2011).
159. Chandra, V. et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 147, 830-839 (2010).
160. Ramos, P. et al. Face, content, construct and concurrent validity of dry laboratory exercises for robotic training using a global assessment tool. BJU Int. 113, 836-842 (2014).
161. Hung, A. J., Shah, S. H., Dalag, L., Shin, D. & Gill, I. S. development and validation of a novel robotic procedure specific simulation platform: partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 194, 520-526 (2015).
162. Chowriappa, A. et al. Augmented-reality-based skills training for robot-assisted urethrovesical anastomosis: a multi-institutional randomised controlled trial. BJU Int. 115, 336-345 (2015).
163. Goh, A., Joseph, R., O'Malley, M., Miles, B. & Dunkin, B. Development and validation of inanimate tasks for robotic surgical skills assessment and training. J. Urol. 183, e516 (2010).
164. Ghazi, A., Stone, J., Candela, B., Richards, M. & Joseph, J. Simulated inanimate model for physical learning experience (simple) for robotic partial nephrectomy using a 3d printed kidney model. J. Urol. 193, e778 (2015).
165. Candela, B. et al. Concurrent validity of a simulated inanimate model for physical learning experience in partial nephrectomy (SIMPLE-PN). J. Urol. 195, e220 (2016).
166. Maddox, M. et al. Resectable physical 3d models utilizing 3d printer technology for robotic partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 193, e492 (2015).
167. Hung, A. J. et al. Validation of a novel robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy surgical training model. BJU Int. 110, 870-874 (2012).
168. Alemozaffar, M. et al. Validation of a novel, tissuebased simulator for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J. Endourol. 28, 995-1000 (2014).
169. Volpe, A. et al. Pilot Validation Study of the European Association of Urology Robotic Training Curriculum. Eur. Urol.,68, 292-299 (2015).
170. Novara, G. et al. Validation of the European Association of Urology Robotic Training Curriculum: Pilot study II. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 14, e193 (2015).
171. Raison, N., Ahmed, K., Aydin, A., Khan, M. S. & Dasgupta, P. A. Novel Cadaveric Robotic Training Programme. J. Endourol 29, A74 (2015).
172. Singal, A., Halverson, A., Rooney, D. M., Davis, L. M. & Kielb, S. J. A validated low-cost training model for suprapubic catheter insertion. Urology 85, 23-26 (2015).
173. Hossack, T., Chris, B. B., Beer, J. & Thompson, G. A cost-effective, easily reproducible, suprapubic catheter insertion simulation training model. Urology 82, 955-958 (2013).
174. Shergill, I. S., Shaikh, T., Arya, M. & Junaid, I. A training model for suprapubic catheter insertion: the UroEmerge suprapubic catheter model. Urology 72, 196-197 (2008).
175. Parnham, A., Campain, N., Biyani, C. S., Muneer, A. & Venn, S. Validation of a reusable model for simulation training of adult circumcision. Bull. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 97, 383-385 (2015).
176. Abdulmajed, M. I., Thomas, M. & Shergill, I. S. A new training model for adult circumcision. J. Surg. Educ. 69, 447-448 (2012).
177. Pathak, R., Alford, S. & Igel, T. Mp23-07 vasectomy simulation module: didactic, audio-visual, and live-simulation experience. J. Urol. 193, e269 (2015).
178. Park, S., Fahey, N., Wind, A. & Farhat, O. Mp23-18 face and content validation of a vasectomy simulator. J. Urol. 193, e274 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1261 (2015).
179. Cabello, R. et al. An Experimental Model for Training in Renal Transplantation Surgery With Human Cadavers Preserved Using W. Thiel's Embalming Technique. J. Surg. Educ., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.10.002 (2014).
180. Brunckhorst, O., Khan, M. S., Dasgupta, P. & Ahmed, K. Effective non-technical skills are imperative to robot-assisted surgery. BJU Int. 116, 842-844 (2015).
181. Brunckhorst, O. et al. Simulation-based ureteroscopy skills training curriculum with integration of technical and non-technical skills: a randomised controlled trial. Surg. Endosc. 29, 2728-2735 (2015).
182. Brunckhorst, O. et al. The relationship between technical and nontechnical skills within a simulationbased ureteroscopy training environment. J. Surg. Educ. 72, 1039-1044 (2015).
183. Brewin, J. et al. Full immersion simulation: validation of a distributed simulation environment for technical and non-technical skills training in Urology. BJU Int. 116, 156-162 (2015).
184. Xu, S., Perez, M., Perrenot, C., Hubert, N. & Hubert, J. Face, content, construct, and concurrent validity of a novel robotic surgery patient-side simulator: the Xperience Team Trainer. Surg. Endosc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4607-x (2015).
185. Tjiam, I. M. et al. Program for laparoscopic urologic skills: a newly developed and validated educational program. Urology 79, 815-820 (2012).
186. Tjiam, I. M. et al. Program for laparoscopic urological skills assessment: setting certification standards for residents. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 22, 26-32 (2013).
187. Sweet, R. M. et al. Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association Basic Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery skills curriculum. J. Endourol. 26, 190-196 (2012).
188. Brinkman, W. M. et al. Results of the European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills examination. Eur. Urol. 65, 490-496 (2014).
189. Volpe, A. et al. Pilot Validation Study of the European Association of Urology Robotic Training Curriculum. Eur. Urol. 68, 292-299 (2015).
190. Youssef, R. F. et al. Applications of three-dimensional printing technology in urological practice. BJU Int. 116, 697-702 (2015).
191. Makiyama, K. et al. Development of a patient-specific simulator for laparoscopic renal surgery. Int. J. Urol. 19, 829-835 (2012).
192. Yamanaka, H. et al. Preparation for pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction using a patientspecific laparoscopic simulator: a case report. J. Med. Case Rep. 6, 338 (2012).
193. General Medical Council. The Curriculum for Urological Training - Years 1-7 (GMC, 2008).
194. Joint Committee on Surgical Training. Higher Surgical Training in Urology - A Guide for Trainers and Trainees in the U. K and Ireland, (JMC, 2003).
195. Aydin, A., Shafi, A. M., Khan, M. S., Dasgupta, P. & Ahmed, K. Current Status of Simulation and Training Models in Urological Surgery: A Systematic Review. J. Urol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.131 (2016).
196. Blaschko, S. D. et al. Coordinated multiple cadaver use for minimally invasive surgical training. JSLS 11, 403-407 (2007).