Novel Education and Simulation Tools in Urologic Training
- 43 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Postgraduate medical training has evolved considerably from an emphasis on hands-on, autonomous learning to a paradigm where simulation technologies are used to introduce and augment certain skill sets. This review is intended to provide an update on surgical simulators and tools for urological trainee education.
We provide an overview of simulation platforms for robotics, endoscopy, and laparoscopic practice and training. In general, these simulators provide face, content, and construct validity. Various educational and evaluation tools have been adopted.
Simulation platforms have been developed for technical and non-technical surgical skills, educational bootcamps, and tools for evaluation and feedback. While trainees find the opportunity to practice their skills beneficial, there may be difficulty with access due to cost and availability. Additionally, there is a need for more objective metrics demonstrating improvement in skill or patient outcome.
KeywordsSimulation Virtual reality Surgical skills training Surgical education Educational apps
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Brandon S. Childs, Marc D. Manganiello, and Ruslan Korets each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.• Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, Guru KA, Challacombe B, Dasgupta P, et al. Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators–a systematic review. BJU Int. 2013;111(2):194–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11270.x. Systematic review of validation within the field of robotic simulators. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.•• MacCraith E, Forde JC, Davis NF. Robotic simulation training for urological trainees: a comprehensive review on cost, merits and challenges. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(3):371–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00934-1 Complete review of all current available robotic simulators, their cost, and advantages/disadvantages. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.• Hoogenes J, Wong N, Al-Harbi B, Kim KS, Vij S, Bolognone E, et al. A randomized comparison of 2 robotic virtual reality simulators and evaluation of trainees’ skills transfer to a simulated robotic urethrovesical anastomosis task. Urology. 2018;111:110–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.023. dVSSS trainer led to higher GEARS and RACE scores vs. dV-T for performance of the urethrovesical anastomosis task in junior trainees but not seniors. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.McDonough P, Peterson A, Brand T. Initial validation of the ProMIS surgical simulator as an objective measure of robotic task performance. J Urol. 2010;183(4):e515.Google Scholar
- 7.Gavazzi A, Bahsoun AN, Van Haute W, Ahmed K, Elhage O, Jaye P, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;93(2):152–6. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588411X12851639108358.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.• Moglia A, Ferrari V, Morelli L, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A. A systematic review of virtual reality simulators for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1065–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.09.021. Systematic review concluding that there is an urgent need for a large, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to assess the transferability of skills into the operating room. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.• Nagendran M, Toon CD, Davidson BR, Gurusamy KS. Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD010479. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010479.pub2.
- 13.Aslam A, Nason GJ, Giri SK. Homemade laparoscopic surgical simulator: a cost-effective solution to the challenge of acquiring laparoscopic skills? Ir J Med Sci. 2016;185(4):791–6. Cochrane review concluded that laparoscopic box trainers (box, animal, and cadaveric models) appear to improve the overall skill of trainees with no prior experience. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.• Ghazi A, Campbell T, Melnyk R, Feng C, Andrusco A, Stone J, et al. Validation of a full-immersion simulation platform for percutaneous nephrolithotomy using three-dimensional printing technology. J Endourol. 2017;31(12):1314–20. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0366. Validated, 3-D print model for PCNL for full immersion simulation. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Parkhomenko E, O'Leary M, Safiullah S, Walia S, Owyong M, Lin C, et al. Pilot assessment of immersive virtual reality renal models as an educational and preoperative planning tool for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2019;33(4):283–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0626.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Kuronen-Stewart C, Ahmed K, Aydin A, Cynk M, Miller P, Dasgupta P, et al. MP14-17 Assessment of face, construct and content validity of a novel virtual reality simulator for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Urology. 2015;86(3):639–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.• Rowley K, Pruthi D, Al-Bayati O, Basler J, Liss MA. Novel use of household items in open and robotic surgical skills resident education. Adv Urol. 2019;2019:5794957. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5794957. Low-fidelity, inexpensive, surgical simulators which are easily reproducible at home have been shown to improve open surgical skills. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Lentz AC, Rodríguez D, Davis LG, Apoj M, Kerfoot BP, Perito P, et al. Simulation training in penile implant surgery: assessment of surgical confidence and knowledge with cadaveric laboratory training. Sex Med. 2018;6(4):332–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2018.09.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 30.Porpiglia F, Bertolo R, Checcucci E, Amparore D, Autorino R, Dasgupta P, et al. Development and validation of 3D printed virtual models for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy: urologists’ and patients’ perception. World J Urol. 2018;36(2):201–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2126-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Shee K, Koo K, Wu X, Ghali FM, Halter RJ, Hyams ES. A novel ex vivo trainer for robotic vesicourethral anastomosis. J Robot Surg. 2019:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00926-1.
- 32.• Rodgers A, Trinchieri A, Ather MH, Buchholz N. Vision for the future on urolithiasis: research, management, education and training—some personal views. Urolithiasis. 2018:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1086-2. Discusses the benefits of augmented reality in the urological field, in particular to its benefits related to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.• Bertolo R, Hung A, Porpiglia F, Bove P, Schleicher M, Dasgupta P. Systematic review of augmented reality in urological interventions: the evidences of an impact on surgical outcomes are yet to come. World J Urol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02711-z. Limited benefits of augmented reality currently in comparison with conventional surgery.
- 36.Hanchanale V, Kailavasan M, Rajpal S, Koenig P, Yiasemidou M, Palit V, et al. Impact of urology simulation boot camp in improving endoscopic instrument knowledge. BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning. 2018:bmjstel-2018.Google Scholar
- 37.Kailavasan M, Hanchanale V, Rajpal S, Morley R, Mcllhenny C, Somani B, et al. A method to evaluate trainee progression during simulation training at the Urology Simulation Boot Camp (USBC) course. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(1):215–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.06.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.• Hung AJ, Chen J, Jarc A, Hatcher D, Djaladat H, Gill IS. Development and validation of objective performance metrics for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a pilot study. J Urol. 2018;199(1):296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.081. The establishment of automated performance metrics within the field of urology and specifically radical robotic-assisted prostatectomy. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.Chen J, Oh PJ, Cheng N, Shah A, Montez J, Jarc A, et al. Use of automated performance metrics to measure surgeon performance during robotic vesicourethral anastomosis and methodical development of a training tutorial. J Urol. 2018;200(4):895–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.080.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.•• Sweet R. Taskforce Update: PGY-1 Curriculum Education Tools. [online] Sauweb.org. 2019. https://sauweb.org/docs/taskforces/pgy-1-curriculum-education-tools.aspx. Accessed 12 Jun 2019. A taskforce was created by the Society of Academic Urologists in order to aid in the establishment of a standardized curriculum for urology residents.
- 48.Manganiello M, Haleblian G, Canes D, Chang P, Wagner A, Korets R. Multi-institutional pilot evaluation of an online feedback platform for surgical skill acquisition. New England Section of American Urological Association Annual Meeting. Montreal CA 2017.Google Scholar