Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How far will simulators be involved into training?

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The expansion of laparoscopy and endoscopic surgery has promoted a change in surgical skills acquisition. This review aims to identify problems that modulate surgical skills acquisition and the role of simulation in the current training programs. Social, medical, and working time constraints, together with patient safety issues, lead to a decreased availability of operating room (OR) training opportunities. Systematic reviews show that there is a positive “model to model” transfer of skills more evident for virtual reality (VR) simulation, although transfer from video tower exists for naïve trainees, both of which supplement standard laparoscopic training. VR to OR positive transfer is proven for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, although not for all parameters analyzed. A mixed model integrating both types of trainers into surgical curricula may strengthen their respective possibilities. To what extent simulation will be included in the surgical training programs depends on development of objective and finer assessment tools and proficiency-based criteria.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Reynolds W Jr: The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 2001, 5:89–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons: Integrating advanced laparoscopy into surgical residency training. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc 1998, 12:374–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kohn LT, Coorigan JM, Donaldson MS: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carter FJ, Schijven MP, Aggarwal R, et al.: Consensus guidelines for validation of virtual reality surgical simulators. Surg Endosc 2005, 19:1523–1532.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Paisley AM, Baldwin PJ, Paterson-Brown S: Validity of surgical simulation for the assessment of operative skill. Br J Surg 2001, 88:1525–1532.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chikwe J, de Souza AC, Pepper JR: No time to train the surgeons. BMJ 2004, 328:418–419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Payne SR, Shaw MB: What impact will shortened training have on urological service delivery. Am R Coll Surg Engl 2005, 87:373–378.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. American Urology Association: The future of urology and urologic education in America. AUA News 2006, 11:8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Satava RM, Gallagher AG, Pellegrini CA: Surgical competence and surgical proficiency: definitions, taxonomy and metrics. J Am Coll Surg 2003, 196:933–937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reznick RK, MacRae H:. Teaching surgical skills: changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 2006, 355:2664–2669.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cuschieri A: Nature of human error: implications for surgical practice. Ann Surg 2006, 244:642–648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ericsson KA: Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 2004, 79(Suppl 10):S70–S81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rehrig ST, Powers K, Jones DB: Integrating simulation in surgery as a teaching tool and credentialing standard. J Gastrointest Surg 2008, 12:222–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bridges M, Diamond DL: The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. Am J Surg 1999, 177:28–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tavakol M, Mohagheghi MA, Dennick R: Assessing the skills of surgical residents using simulation. J Surg Educ 2007, 65:77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sugiono M, Teber D, Anghel G, et al.: Assessing the predictive validity and efficacy of a multimodal training programme for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Eur Urol 2007, 51:1332–1339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Katz R, Nadu A, Olsson LE, et al.: A simplified 5-step model for training laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. J Urol 2003, 169:2041–2044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Laguna MP, Arce-Alcazar A, Mochtar CA, et al.: Construct validity of the chicken model in the simulation of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy suture. J Endourol 2006, 20:69–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Haluck RS, Krummel TM: Computers and virtual reality for surgical education in the 21st century. Arch Surg 2000, 135:786–792.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR: Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 2002, 137:511–520.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Seymour NE: VR to OR: a review of the evidence that virtual reality simulation improves operating room performance. World J Surg 2008, 32:182–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Miller GE: The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med 1990, 65(Suppl 9):S63–S67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Macmillan AI, Cuschieri A: Assessment of innate ability and skills for endoscopic manipulations by the Advanced Dundee Endoscopic Psychomotor Tester: predictive and concurrent validity. Am J Surg 1999, 177:274–277.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, et al.: Objective structured assessment of technical skills? (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997, 84:273–278.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Goff BA, Nielsen PE, Lentz GM, et al.: Surgical skills assessment: a blinded examination of obstetrics and gynecology residents. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002, 186:613–617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lentz GM, Mandel SL, Lee D, et al.: Testing surgical skills of obstetrics and gynecology residents in a bench laboratory setting: validity and reliability. Am J Obstet Gyncol 2001, 184:1462–1468.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M, et al.: Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 1998, 175:482–487.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mackay S, Datta V, Mandalia M, et al.: Electromagnetic motion analysis in the assessment of surgical technical skills: relationship between time and movement. ANZ J Surg 2002, 72:632–634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Graham KS, Deary IJ: A role for aptitude testing in surgery? J R Coll Surg Edinb 1999, 36:70–74.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sutherland LM, Middleton PF, Anthony A, et al.: Surgical simulation: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2006, 243:291–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gaba DM: The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Health Care 2004, 13(Suppl 1):i2–i10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Haque S, Srinivasan S: A meta-analysis of the training effectiveness of virtual reality simulators. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2006, 10:51–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sturm LP, Windsor JA, Cosman PH, et al.: A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Ann Surg 2008, 248:166–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, Davidson BR: Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 3:CD006575.

  35. Gurusamy K, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, Davidson BR: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of virtual reality training for laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 2008, 95:1088–1097.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Watterson JD, Beiko DT, Kuan JK, Denstedt JD: Randomized prospective blinded study validating acquisition of ureteroscopy skills using computer based virtual reality endourological simulator. J Urol 2002, 168:1928–1932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wilhelm DM, Ogan K, Roehrborn CG, et al.: Assessment of basic endoscopic performance using a virtual reality simulator. J Am Coll Surg 2002, 195:675–681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Traxer O, Gettman MT, Napper CA, et al.: The impact of intense laparoscopic skills training on the operative performance of urology residents. J Urol 2001, 166:1658–1661.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Matsumoto ED, Hamstra SJ, Radomski SB, Cusimano MD: The effect of bench model fidelity on endourological skills: a randomized controlled study. J Urol 2002, 167:1243–1247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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, 176:2173–2178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lucas S, Tuncel A, Bensalah K, et al.: Virtual reality training improves simulated laparoscopic surgery performance in laparoscopy naïve medical students. J Endourol 2008, 22:1047–1051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Madan AK, Frantzides CT, Tebbit C, Quiros RM: Participants’ opinions of laparoscopic training devices after a basic laparoscopic training course. Am J Surg 2005, 189:758–761.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Le CQ, Lightner DJ, van der Lei L, et al.: The current role of medical simulation in American urological residency training programs: an assessment by program directors. J Urol 2007, 177:288–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Seagull FJ, Moses G, Park AE: Integration of virtual reality and conventional skills trainers: a mixed resource model. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008, 132:446–450.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Epstein RM: Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:387–396.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University Hospital, Amsterdam, 1105, The Netherlands

    M. Pilar Laguna

Authors
  1. M. Pilar Laguna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theodorus M. de Reijke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean J. de la Rosette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Pilar Laguna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Laguna, M.P., de Reijke, T.M. & de la Rosette, J.J. How far will simulators be involved into training?. Curr Urol Rep 10, 97–105 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-009-0019-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-009-0019-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation