Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Recent Advances in Surgical Simulation For Resident Education

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Surgical simulation has become a cornerstone for the training of surgical residents, especially for urology residents. Urology as a specialty bolsters a diverse range of procedures requiring a variety of technical skills ranging from open and robotic surgery to endoscopic procedures. While hands-on supervised training on patients still remains the foundation of residency training and education, it may not be sufficient to achieve proficiency for graduation even if case minimums are achieved. It has been well-established that simulation-based education (SBE) can supplement residency training and achieve the required proficiency benchmarks.

Recent Findings

Low-fidelity modules, such as benchtop suture kits or laparoscopic boxes, can establish a strong basic skills foundation. Eventually, residents progress to high-fidelity models to refine application of technical skills and improve operative performance. Human cadavers and animal models remain the gold standard for procedural SBE. Recently, given the well-recognized financial and ethical costs associated with cadaveric and animal models, residency programs have shifted their investments toward virtual and more immersive simulations.

Summary

Urology as a field has pushed the boundaries of SBE and has reached a level where unexplored modalities, e.g., 3D printing, augmented reality, and polymer casting, are widely utilized for surgical training as well as preparation for challenging cases at both the residents, attending and team training level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Hutter MM, et al. The impact of the 80-hour resident workweek on surgical residents and attending surgeons. Ann Surg. 2006;243(6):864–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosen KR. The history of medical simulation. J Crit Care. 2008;23:157–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwab B, et al. The role of simulation in surgical education. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27(5):450–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kincaid JP, Donovan J, Pettitt B. Simulation techniques for training emergency response. Int J Emerg Med. 2003;1:238–46.

    Google Scholar 

  5. •• Kozan AA, Chan LH, Biyani CS. Current status of simulation training in urology: a non-systematic review. Res Rep Urol. 2020;12:111-12/. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S237808. PMID: 32232016; PMCID: PMC7085342. This review article highlights recent advances in surgical simulation focused on urology and is highly important.

  6. Raemer D. Society for simulation in healthcare. In: Riley RH, editor. Manual of Simulation in Healthcare, Chpt. 38. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 529–32. ISBN 978–0–19- 920585–1.

  7. Badash I, et al. Innovations in surgery simulation: a review of past, current and future techniques. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(23):453.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. •• Pelly T, et al. Low-cost simulation models in urology: a systematic review of the literature. Cent European J Urol. 2020;73(3):373–80. This review highlights low cost or low-fidelity models for urology simulation education.

  9. Rowley K, et al. Novel use of household items in open and robotic surgical skills resident education. Adv Urol. 2019;2019:5794957.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. •• Canalichio KL, Berrondo C, Lendvay TS. Simulation training in urology: state of the art and future directions. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020;11:391–6. This article highlights current and possible future directions of surgical simulation for urologic education and training.

  11. Dawe SR, et al. Systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation-based training. Br J Surg. 2014;101(9):1063–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sethi AS, et al. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol. 2009;23(3):503–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chowriappa A, Raza SJ, Fazili A, et al. Augmented-reality-based skills training for robot-assisted urethrovesical anastomosis: a multi-institutional randomised controlled trial. BJU Int. 2015;11(5):336–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Guru KA, et al. Learning curves for urological procedures: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2014;114:617–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lentz AC, Rodríguez D, Chandrapal JC, Davis LG, Ghazi A, Gross MS, Munarriz R. Cadaveric laboratory simulation training of male stress urinary incontinence treatment improves trainee knowledge and confidence. Urology. 2020;143:48–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. •• Ghazi A. A call for change. Can 3D printing replace cadavers for surgical training? Urol Clin North Am. 2022;49(1):39–56. This project evaluates the utility of synthetic models replacing the costly and ethically challenging problems of cadaveric training modalities.

  17. Carey JN, et al. Simulation of plastic surgery and microvascular procedures using perfused fresh human cadavers. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(2):e42–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yiasemidou M, et al. Cadaveric simulation: a review of reviews. Ir J Med Sci. 2018;187(3):827–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sharma M, Macafee D, Horgan AF. Basic laparoscopic skills training using fresh frozen cadaver: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg. 2013;206(1):23–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roberts KE, Bell RL, Duffy AJ. Evolution of surgical skills training. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(20):3219–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Tan SS, Sarker SK. Simulation in surgery: a review. Scott Med J. 2011;56(2):104–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Farhan B, et al. Face, content, and construct validations of endoscopic needle injection simulator for transurethral bulking agent in treatment of stress urinary incontinence. J Surg Educ. 2018;75(6):1673–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ma R, Reddy S, Vanstrum EB, Hung AJ. Innovations in urologic surgical training. Curr Urol Rep. 2021;22:4–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-021-01043-z. PMID: 33712963; PMCID: PMC8106917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Song PH. Current status of simulation-based training and assessment in urological robot-assisted surgery. Investig Clin Urol. 2016;57(6):375–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Childs BS, Manganiello MD, Korets R. Novel education and simulation tools in urologic training. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20(12):81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Analichio KL, Berrondo C, Lendvay TS. Simulation training in urology: state of the art and future directions. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020;11:391–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schulz GB, et al. Benefits and limitations of transurethral resection of the prostate training with a novel virtual reality simulator. Simul Healthc. 2020;15(1):14–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brewin J, et al. Face, content, and construct validation of the Bristol TURP trainer. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(4):500–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schout BM, Ananias HJ, Bemelmans BL, et al. Transfer of cysto-urethroscopy skills from a virtual- reality simulator to the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2010;106:226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schulz GB, et al. Validation of a high-end virtual reality simulator for training transurethral resection of bladder tumors. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(2):568–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tjiam IM, et al. Evaluation of the educational value of a virtual reality TURP simulator according to a curriculum-based approach. Simul Healthc. 2014;9(5):288–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hudak SJ, et al. External validation of a virtual reality transurethral resection of the prostate simulator. J Urol. 2010;184(5):2018–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ahmed K, Jawad M, Dasgupta P, Darzi A, Athanasiou T, Khan MS. Assessment and maintenance of competence in urology. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7:403–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Stern J, Zeltser IS, Pearle MS. Percutaneous renal access simulators. J Endourol. 2007;21:270–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Knudsen BE, Matsumoto ED, Chew BH, 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. 2006;176:2173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mishra S, Kurien A, Patel R, Patil P, Ganpule A, Muthu V, Sabnis RB, Desai M. Validation of virtual reality simulation for percutaneous renal access training. J Endourol. 2010;24:635–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kamel M, Eltahawy EA, Warford R, Thrush CR, Noureldin YA. Simulation-based training in urology residency programmes in the USA: results of a nationwide survey. Arab J Urol. 2018;16(4):446–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2018.06.003. PMID: 30534446; PMCID: PMC6277275.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Al Janabi HF, et al. Effectiveness of the HoloLens mixed-reality headset in minimally invasive surgery: a simulation-based feasibility study. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(3):1143–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Neumann E, et al. Transurethral resection of bladder tumors: next-generation virtual reality training for surgeons. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(5):906–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen MY, Skewes J, Desselle M, Wong C, Woodruff MA, Dasgupta P, Rukin NJ. Current applications of three-dimensional printing in urology. BJU Int. 2020;125(1):17–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14928. Epub 2019 Nov 6. PMID: 31622020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ghazi AE, Teplitz BA. Role of 3D printing in surgical education for robotic urology procedures. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(2):931–941. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2020.01.03. PMID: 32420209; PMCID: PMC7214988.

  42. Komai Y, et al. A novel 3-dimensional image analysis system for case-specific kidney anatomy and surgical simulation to facilitate clampless partial nephrectomy. Urology. 2014;83(2):500–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Silberstein JL, et al. Physical models of renal malignancies using standard cross-sectional imaging and 3-dimensional printers: a pilot study. Urology. 2014;84(2):268–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Adams F, Qiu T, Mark A, Fritz B, Kramer L, Schlager D, Wetterauer U, Miernik A, Fischer P. Soft 3D-Printed phantom of the human kidney with collecting system. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(4):963–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1757-5. Epub 2016 Nov 9. PMID: 27830490; PMCID: PMC5362658.

  45. Melnyk R, Ezzat B, Belfast E, Saba P, Farooq S, Campbell T, et al. Mechanical and functional validation of a perfused, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy simulation platform using a combination of 3D printing and hydrogel casting. World J Urol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02989-z.

  46. Ghazi A, Melnyk R, Hung A, Collins J, Ertefaie A, Saba P, Gurung P, Frye T, Mottrie A, Costello T, Dasgupta P, Joseph J. Multi-institutional validation of a perfused robot-assisted partial nephrectomy procedural simulation platform utilizing clinically relevant objective metrics of simulators (CROMS). BJU Int. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15246. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32936977.

  47. Witthaus MW, Farooq S, Melnyk R, Campbell T, Saba P, Mathews E, et al. Incorporation and validation of clinically relevant performance metrics of simulation (CRPMS) into a novel full-immersion simulation platform for nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (NS-RARP) utilizing three-dimensional printing and hydrogel casting technology. BJU Int. 2019;125:322–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14940.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Saba P, Belfast E, Melnyk R, Patel A, Kashyap R, Ghazi A. Development of a high-fidelity robotic assisted kidney transplant (RAKT) simulation platform using 3D printing and hydrogel casting technologies. J Endourol. 2020. Epub 2020 Jun 27.

  49. Ghazi A, Campbell T, Melnyk R, Feng C, Andrusco A, Stone J, Etrurk E. Validation of a full-immersion simulation platform for percutaneous nephrolithotomy using three-dimensional printing technology. J Endourol. 2017;31:1314–20. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Cheung CL, Looi T, Lendvay TS, Drake JM, Farhat WA. Use of 3-dimensional printing technology and silicone modelling in surgical simulation: development and face validation in paediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:762–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.03.00.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Raison N, Harrison P, Abe T, Aydin A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P. Procedural virtual reality simulation training for robotic surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(12):6897–6902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08197-w. Epub 2021 Jan 4. PMID: 33398587; PMCID: PMC8599326.

  52. Sainsbury B, Łącki M, Shahait M, Goldenberg M, Baghdadi A, Cavuoto L, Ren J, Green M, Lee J, Averch TD, Rossa C. Evaluation of a virtual reality percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) surgical simulator. Front Robot AI. 2020;14(6):145. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00145. PMID: 33501160; PMCID: PMC7805868.

  53. Marr B. The important difference between virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality. Forbes. 2019.

  54. Wish-Baratz S, Crofton A, Gutierrez J, Henninger E, Griswold M. Assessment of mixed-reality technology use in remote online anatomy education. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2016271. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.16271. 

  55. Ruthberg J, Tingle G, Tan L, et al. Mixed reality as a time-efficient alternative to cadaveric dissection. Med Teach. 2020;42(8):896–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2020.1762032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rojas-Muñoz E, et al. Surgical telementoring without encumbrance: a comparative study of see-through augmented reality-based approaches. Ann Surg. 2019;270(2):384–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Saba P, Shepard L, Nithipalan V, Holler T, Rashid H, Quarrier S, Ghazi A. Design and development of a high-fidelity transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) simulation model for remote education and training. Urol Video J. 2022;100183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolvj.2022.100183. ISSN 2590-0897.

  58. Ghazi A, Saba P, Shuler N, Shepard L, Witthaus M, Munarriz R. Design of a non-biohazardous simulation model for inflatable penile prosthetic placement using 3D printing technology: a feasibility and utility study for socially distanced education using mixed reality technologies for remote proctoring. Urol Video J. 2022;100193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolvj.2022.100193. ISSN 2590–0897.

  59. Witthaus MW, Saba P, Melnyk R, Ajay D, Ralph D, Van Renterghem K, Warren G, Munarriz R, Ghazi A. The future of penile prosthetic surgical training is here: design of a hydrogel model for inflatable penile prosthetic placement using modern education theory. J Sex Med. 2020. Epub 2020 Sep 15.

  60. Ghazi A, Melnyk R, Melnyk J, Jain R, Quarrier S, et al. Design and validation of a non-biohazardous simulation model for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HOLEP). J Urol. 2022;207:Supplement 5.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brady Urological Institute, John’s Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Christopher Wanderling, Aaron Saxton, Dennis Phan, Lauren Sheppard, Nathan Schuler & Ahmed Ghazi

Authors
  1. Christopher Wanderling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aaron Saxton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dennis Phan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lauren Sheppard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nathan Schuler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ahmed Ghazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Ghazi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors do not have any conflicts to disclose pertaining to this work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wanderling, C., Saxton, A., Phan, D. et al. Recent Advances in Surgical Simulation For Resident Education. Curr Urol Rep 24, 491–502 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01178-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01178-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation