Laparoscopic Training Using Cadavers

  • Thomas Y. Hsueh


Surgical education is the fundamentals of medicine and warrants experience transfer from generations to generation to achieve a better disease management. Laparoscopic procedure requires a steep learning curve compared to conventional open procedures due to two-dimensional vision, lack of tactile sensation and limited working space. The training curriculum in laparoscopic procedures includes not only didactic lectures but also hand-on surgical training lab. The application of computerized simulators, tissue analogue simulators and cadavers is proved to be efficient for surgical skills training in laparoscopy. The training in nontechnical surgical skills is found to have positive impact on surgical training, especially in interpersonal communication and team work during emergency scenarios in the operating room. This chapter will discuss the concept on surgical training, training curriculum design, the application of simulators in laparoscopic training and nontechnical training in laparoscopic surgery.


Laparoscopy Surgical training Simulator 


  1. Alemozaffar M, Narayanan R, Percy A, et al. Validation of a novel, tissue-based simulator for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2014;28:995–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewin J, Nedas T, Challacombe B, et al. Face, content and construct validation of the first virtual reality laparoscopic nephrectomy simulator. BJU Int. 2010;106:850–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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;115:336–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corica FA, Boker JR, Chou DS, et al. Short-term impact of a laparosocpic “mini-residency” experience on postgraduate urologists’ practice patterns. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203:692–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52:281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Win G, Van Bruwaene S, Allen C, et al. Design and implementation of a proficiency-based, structured endoscopy course for medical students applying for a surgical specialty. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2013;4:103–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giger U, Fresard I, Hafliger A, et al. Laparoscopic training on Thiel human cadavers: a model to teach advanced laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:901–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guion RM. On trinitarian doctrines of validity. Prof Psychol. 1980;11:385–98.Google Scholar
  9. Halsted SW. The training of the surgeon. Bull John Hopkins Hosp. 1904;15:267–75.Google Scholar
  10. Holden RB. Face validity. In: Weiner IB, Craighead WE, editors. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. 4th ed. NJ: Wiley; 2010. p. 637–8.Google Scholar
  11. Hung AJ, Ng CK, Patil MB, et al. Validation of a novel robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy surgical training model. BJU Int. 2012;110:870–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hung AJ, Shah SH, Dalag L, et al. Development and validation of a novel robotic procedure specific simulation platform: partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2015;194:520–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Imakuma ES, Ussami EY, Meyer A. Laparoscopic training model using fresh human cadavers without the establishment of pneumoperitoneum. J Minim Access Surg. 2016;12:190–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiang C, Liu M, Chen J, et al. Construct validity of the chicken crop model in the simulation of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2013;27:1032–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kang SG, Cho S, Kang SH, 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. 2014;84:345–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kneebone R. Simulation in surgical training: educational issues and practical implications. Med Educ. 2003;27:267–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laguna MP, Hatzinger M, Rassweiler J. Simulators and endourological training. Curr Opin Urol. 2002;12:209–15.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28:563–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, McDougall EM. Simulating laparoscopic renal hilar vessel injuries: preliminary evaluation of a novel surgical training model for residents. J Endourol. 2012a;26:393–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Canales C, et al. High fidelity simulation based team training in urology: a preliminary interdisciplinary study on technical and nontechnical skills in laparoscopic complications management. J Urol. 2012b;187:1385–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matsuda T, McDougall EM, Ono Y, et al. Positive correlation between motion analysis data on the LapMentor virtual reality surgical simulator and the results from videotape assessment of real laparoscopic surgeries. J Endourol. 2012;26:1506–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poniatowski LH, Wolf JS Jr, Nakada SY, et al. Validity and acceptability of a high-fidelity physical simulation model for training of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2014;28:393–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 2012;187:1861–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SAGES. Guidelines for granting of privileges for laparoscopic and/or thoracoscopic general surgery. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc. 1998;12:379–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Satava RM. Surgical education and surgical simulation. World J Surg. 2001;25:1484–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sharma M, Horgan A. Comparison of fresh-frozen cadaver and high-fidelity virtual reality simulators as methods of laparoscopic training. World J Surg. 2012;36:1732–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Traxer O, Gettman MT, Napper CA, et al. The impact of intensive laparoscopic skills training on the operative performance of urology residents. J Urol. 2001;166:1658–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tunitsky E, Murphy A, Barber MD, et al. Development and validation of a ureteral anastomosis simulation model for surgical training. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19:346–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vaziri M. Laparoscopic surgical education. J Minim Invasive Surg Sci. 2013;2:1–2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Y. Hsueh
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Urology, Department of SurgeryTaipei City Hospital Renal BranchTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Urology, School of MedicineNational Yang-Ming UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations