Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBerridge, Christopher
dc.contributor.authorKailavasan, Mithun
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-19T10:37:25Z
dc.date.available2022-01-19T10:37:25Z
dc.date.issued2021-08
dc.identifier.citationBerridge, C., Kailavasan, M., Athanasiadis, G., Gkentzis, A., Tassadaq, T., Palit, V., Rai, B., Biyani, C. S., & Nabi, G. (2021). Endoscopic surgical simulation using low-fidelity and virtual reality transurethral resection simulators in urology simulation boot camp course: trainees feedback assessment study. World journal of urology, 39(8), 3103–3107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03559-4en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/15085
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The objective of our study was to study trainees' feedback and rating of models for training transurethral resection of bladder lesions (TURBT) and prostate (TURP) during simulation. Methods: The study was performed during the ''Transurethral resection (TUR) module" at the boot camp held in 2019. Prior to the course, all trainees were required to evaluate their experience in performing TURBT and TURP procedures. Trainees simulated resection on two different models; low-fidelity tissue model (Samed, GmBH, Dresden, Germany) and virtual reality simulator (TURPMentor, 3D Systems, Littleton, US). Following the completion of the module, trainees completed a questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate their assessment of the models for surgical training. Results: In total, 174 simulation assessments were performed by 56 trainees (Samed Bladder-40, Prostate-45, TURPMentor Bladder-51, Prostate-37). All trainees reported that they had performed < 50 TUR procedures. The Samed model median scores were for appearance (4/5), texture (5/5), feel (5/5) and conductibility (5/5). The TURPMentor median score was for appearance (4/5), texture and feel (4/5) and conductibility (4/5). The most common criticism of the Samed model was that it failed to mimic bleeding. In contrast, trainees felt that the TURPMentor haptic feedback was inadequate to allow for close resection and did not calibrate movements accurately. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that both forms of simulators (low-fidelity and virtual reality) were rated highly by urology trainees and improve their confidence in performing transurethral resection and in fact complement each other in providing lower tract endoscopic resection simulation.
dc.description.sponsorshipEquipment and sponsorship for the Urology Simulation Boot Camp were provided by: Karl Storz, Cook Medical, Coloplast, Ethicon, Dantec, OKB Medical (Simbionix), MediPlus, Teleflex, European Pharma.en_US
dc.description.urihttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00345-020-03559-4en_US
dc.subjectsimulationen_US
dc.subjectTURBTen_US
dc.subjectTURPen_US
dc.subjecturologyen_US
dc.subjectvirtual realityen_US
dc.titleEndoscopic surgical simulation using low-fidelity and virtual reality transurethral resection simulators in urology simulation boot camp course: trainees feedback assessment studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s00345-020-03559-4en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2021-01-04
html.description.abstractObjectives: The objective of our study was to study trainees' feedback and rating of models for training transurethral resection of bladder lesions (TURBT) and prostate (TURP) during simulation. Methods: The study was performed during the ''Transurethral resection (TUR) module" at the boot camp held in 2019. Prior to the course, all trainees were required to evaluate their experience in performing TURBT and TURP procedures. Trainees simulated resection on two different models; low-fidelity tissue model (Samed, GmBH, Dresden, Germany) and virtual reality simulator (TURPMentor, 3D Systems, Littleton, US). Following the completion of the module, trainees completed a questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate their assessment of the models for surgical training. Results: In total, 174 simulation assessments were performed by 56 trainees (Samed Bladder-40, Prostate-45, TURPMentor Bladder-51, Prostate-37). All trainees reported that they had performed < 50 TUR procedures. The Samed model median scores were for appearance (4/5), texture (5/5), feel (5/5) and conductibility (5/5). The TURPMentor median score was for appearance (4/5), texture and feel (4/5) and conductibility (4/5). The most common criticism of the Samed model was that it failed to mimic bleeding. In contrast, trainees felt that the TURPMentor haptic feedback was inadequate to allow for close resection and did not calibrate movements accurately. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that both forms of simulators (low-fidelity and virtual reality) were rated highly by urology trainees and improve their confidence in performing transurethral resection and in fact complement each other in providing lower tract endoscopic resection simulation.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record