Advertisement

Ureteroscopy pp 443-451 | Cite as

Surgical Simulation

  • Amy E. KrambeckEmail author
  • Matthew T. Gettman
  • Mitra R. de Cógáin
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

Due to multiple factors, the approach to resident endourologic training has recently changed. Resident-patient contact has decreased secondary to restricted work hours, financial constraints of teaching institutions, and medicolegal concerns. Additionally, there is an increased breadth of knowledge and surgical skill required for Urology trainees, with the ongoing development of new minimally invasive techniques. The use of bench models, animal and cadaveric models, and virtual reality (VR) simulators has been proposed to bridge the existing training gap. Multiple studies have shown that ureteroscopic simulation is a valid method for teaching a basic skill set to residents, with improvement of skills throughout the completion of a designated curriculum. No widely accepted training module for ureteroscopic simulation has yet been established, although many authors propose a curriculum which incorporates the use of validated simulators in repetitive training activities, under the guidance of experts in the field. This chapter serves to further explain the increasing need for ureteroscopic simulation, to describe the validation of various simulators, to review simulators that are currently available, and to discuss the implementation of a ureteroscopic simulation curriculum.

Keywords

Virtual Reality Simulation Training Surgical Simulation Simulation Activity Virtual Reality Simulator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacomides L, Ogan K, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. Use of a virtual reality simulator for ureteroscopy training. J Urol. 2004;171(1):320–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Le CQ, Lightner DJ, VanderLei L, Segura JW, Gettman MT. The current role of medical simulation in American urological residency training programs: an assessment by program directors. J Urol. 2007;177(1):288–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wallack MK, Chao L. Resident work hours: the ­evolution of a revolution. Arch Surg. 2001;136(12):1426–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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(3):1243–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bridges M, Diamond DL. The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. Am J Surg. 1999;177(1):28–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wignall GR, Denstedt JD, Preminger GM, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS, Sweet RM, McDougall EM. Surgical simulation: a urological perspective. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1690–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gettman MT, Le CQ, Rangel LJ, Slezak JM, Bergstralh EJ, Krambeck AE. Analysis of a computer based simulator as an educational tool for cystoscopy: subjective and objective results. J Urol. 2008;179(1):267–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watterson JD, Denstedt JD. Ureteroscopy and cystoscopy simulation in urology. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):263–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fairhurst K, Strickland A, Maddern GJ. Simulation speak. J Surg Educ. 2011;68(5):382–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sutton E and Park A. Minimally invasive surgery training: theories, methods, outcomes [Internet]. Washington: Department of Health & Human Services (US), National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine; 2010. Chapter 7, Simulation’s Role in Surgical Training. Available from: http://mastri.umm.edu/NIH-Book/index.html
  11. 11.
    Hammond L, Ketchum J, Schwartz BF. Accreditation council on graduate medical education technical skills competency compliance: urologic surgical skills. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(3):454–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Listing of ACS Accredited Education Institutes [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2011 Dec 2]; Available at: www.facs.org/education/accreditationprogram/list.html
  13. 13.
    Sweet RM, McDougall EM. Simulation and computer-animated devices: the new minimally invasive skills training paradigm. Urol Clin North Am. 2008;35(3):519–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schout BM, Hendrikx AJ, Scheele F, Bemelmans BL, Scherpbier AJ. Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(3):536–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):244–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brehmer M, Swartz R. Training on bench models improves dexterity in ureteroscopy. Eur Urol. 2005;48(3):458–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carter FJ, Schijven MP, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Francis NK, Hanna GB, Jakimowicz JJ. Consensus guidelines for validation of virtual reality surgical simulators. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(12):1523–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Olweny EO, Pearle MS. Update on resident training models for ureteroscopy. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12(2):115–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chou DS, Abdelshehid C, Clayman RV, McDougall EM. Comparison of results of virtual-reality simulator and training model for basic ureteroscopy training. J Endourol. 2006;20(4):266–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilhelm DM, Ogan K, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. Assessment of basic endoscopic performance using a virtual reality simulator. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195(5):675–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shah J, Mackay S, Vale J, Darzi A. Simulation in urology–a role for virtual reality? BJU Int. 2001;88(7):661–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Preminger GM, Babayan RK, Merril GL, Raju R, Millman A, Merril JR. Virtual reality surgical simulation in endoscopic urologic surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1996;29:157–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schout BM, Hendrikx AJ, Scherpbier AJ, Bemelmans BL. Update on training models in endourology: a qualitative systematic review of the literature between January 1980 and April 2008. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1247–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    White MA, Dehaan AP, Stephens DD, Maes AA, Maatman TJ. Validation of a high fidelity adult ureteroscopy and renoscopy simulator. J Urol. 2010;183(2):673–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brehmer M, Tolley D. Validation of a bench model for endoscopic surgery in the upper urinary tract. Eur Urol. 2002;42(2):175–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Michel MS, Knoll T, Köhrmann KU, 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. 2002;89(3):174–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matsumoto ED, Pace KT, D’A Honey RJ. Virtual reality ureteroscopy simulator as a valid tool for assessing endourological skills. Int J Urol. 2006;13(7):896–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watterson JD, Beiko DT, Kuan JK, Denstedt JD. Randomized prospective blinded study validating acquistion of ureteroscopy skills using computer based virtual reality endourological simulator. J Urol. 2002;168(5):1928–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ogan K, Jacomides L, Shulman MJ, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. Virtual ureteroscopy predicts ureteroscopic proficiency of medical students on a cadaver. J Urol. 2004;172(2):667–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shah J, Montgomery B, Langley S, Darzi A. Validation of a flexible cystoscopy course. BJU Int. 2002;90(9):833–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sampaio FJ, Pereira-Sampaio MA, Favorito LA. The pig kidney as an endourologic model: anatomic contribution. J Endourol. 1998;12(1):45–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Paterson RF, Lingeman JE, Evan AP, Connors BA, Williams Jr JC, McAteer JA. Percutaneous stone implantation in the pig kidney: a new animal model for lithotripsy research. J Endourol. 2002;16(8):543–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Evan AP, Connors BA, Lingeman JE, Blomgren P, Willis LR. Branching patterns of the renal artery of the pig. Anat Rec. 1996;246(2):217–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cervantes L, Keitzer WA. Endoscopic training in urology. J Urol. 1960;84:585–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Trindade JC, Lautenschlager MF, de Araujo CG. Endoscopic surgery: a new teaching method. J Urol. 1981;126(2):192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Habib HN, Berger J, Winter CC. Teaching transurethral surgery using a cow’s udder. J Urol. 1965;93:77–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Narwani KP, Reid EC. Teaching transurethral prostatic resection using cadaver bladder. J Urol. 1969;101(1):101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ahmed K, Amer T, Challacombe B, Jaye P, Dasgupta P, Khan MS. How to develop a simulation programme in urology. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1698–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grantcharov TP, Reznick RK. Teaching procedural skills. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1129–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP, Eriksen JR, Blirup D, Kristiansen VB, Funch-Jensen P, Darzi A. An evidence-based virtual reality training program for novice laparoscopic surgeons. Ann Surg. 2006;244(2):310–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Moorthy K, Hance J, Darzi A. A competency-based virtual reality training curriculum for the acquisition of laparoscopic psychomotor skill. Am J Surg. 2006;191(1):128–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy E. Krambeck
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew T. Gettman
    • 1
  • Mitra R. de Cógáin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations