Abstract
Objectives
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
NICE guidance to help thousands of men needing surgery on enlarged prostate glands | Press and media | News. NICE. NICE: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/press-and-media/nice-guidance-to-help-thousands-of-men-needing-surgery-on-enlarged-prostate-glands. Accessed 28 May 2020
Transurethral resection of bladder tumour as day-case surgery: Evidence of effectiveness from the UK Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) programme. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335675460_Transurethral_resection_of_bladder_tumour_as_day-case_surgery_Evidence_of_effectiveness_from_the_UK_Getting_it_Right_First_Time_GIRFT_programme. Accessed 28 May 2020
Gill JD, Stewart LF, George NJR, Eardley I (2012) Operative experience of urological trainees in the UK. BJU Int 109(9):1296–1301
Robinson R, O’Flynn KJ. Indicative operative numbers in urology training in the UK and Ireland. J Clin Urol. 2015; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415814568134.Accessed28 May 2020
Professionals S-O. EAU Guidelines: Management of Non-neurogenic Male LUTS. Uroweb. https://uroweb.org/guideline/treatment-of-non-neurogenic-male-luts/. Accessed 28 May 2020
Källström R, Hjertberg H, Svanvik J (2010) Impact of virtual reality-simulated training on urology residents’ performance of transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol 24(9):1521–1528
Kailavasan M, Berridge C, Athanasiadis G, Gkentzis A, Rai B, Jain S et al (2020) Design, implementation, and evaluation of a novel curriculum to teach transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): a 3-year experience of urology simulation bootcamp course. World J Urol. 38:2899–2906
Kozan AA, Chan LH, Biyani CS (2020) Current status of simulation training in urology: a non-systematic review. Res Rep Urol 17(12):111–128
Kumar PVS, Gomes MPSF, Davies BL, Timoney AG (2002) A computer assisted surgical trainer for transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol 168(5):2111–2114
Bright E, Vine S, Wilson MR, Masters RSW, McGrath JS (2012) Face validity, construct validity and training benefits of a virtual reality TURP simulator. Int J Surg Lond Engl 10(3):163–166
Hudak SJ, Landt CL, Hernandez J, Soderdahl DW (2010) External validation of a virtual reality transurethral resection of the prostate simulator. J Urol 184(5):2018–2022
Schout BMA, Bemelmans BLH, Martens EJ, Scherpbier AJJA, Hendrikx AJM (2009) How useful and realistic is the uro trainer for training transurethral prostate and bladder tumor resection procedures? J Urol. 181(3):1297–1303
Brewin J, Ahmed K, Khan MS, Jaye P, Dasgupta P (2014) Face, content, and construct validation of the Bristol TURP trainer. J Surg Educ 71(4):500–505
Tjiam IM, Berkers CH, Schout BM, Brinkman WM, Witjes JA, Scherpbier AJ et al (2014) Evaluation of the educational value of a virtual reality TURP simulator according to a curriculum-based approach. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc 9(5):288–294
Schulz GB, Grimm T, Buchner A, Jokisch F, Casuscelli J, Kretschmer A et al (2019) Validation of a high-end virtual reality simulator for training transurethral resection of bladder tumors. J Surg Educ 76(2):568–577
Khan R, Aydin A, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K (2015) Simulation-based training for prostate surgery. BJU Int 116(4):665–674
Ebbing J, Schostak M, Steiner U, Stier K, Neymeyer J, Miller K et al (2011) Novel low-cost prostate resection trainer-description and preliminary evaluation. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 7(3):367–373
Young M, Kailavasan M, Taylor J, Cornford P, Colquhoun A, Rochester M et al (2019) The success and evolution of a urological ‘boot camp’ for newly appointed UK urology registrars: incorporating simulation, nontechnical skills and assessment. J Surg Educ 76(5):1425–1432
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all participants and module co-faculty for their continued support: Safraz Ahmad, James Armitage, Andreas Bourdoumis, Nick Campain, Ivo Dukic, Ismail E-Mokadem, Paul Halliday, Adrian Joyce, Phil Koenig, Sanjay Rajpal, Karol Rogawski, Petros Tsafrakidis, Ross Vint. We could not have done without the excellent support from Joanne Johnson, Jodie Fowler Lesley Wood, MarK Logan, Jack Holmes and Dave Gould Medical Education Team, Leeds Teaching Hospital, Leeds.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Protocol/project development–CSB, GN. Data collection or management–GA, AG, TT, VP, BR. Data analysis–CB, MK. Manuscript writing/editing–CSB, CB, MK.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
conflict of interest
None.
Financial disclosures
Equipment 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.
Research involving Human Participants and/or Animals
Not applicable.
Informed consent
All participants in this study provided written informed consent.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Christopher Berridge, Mithun Kailavasan have contributed equally.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Berridge, C., Kailavasan, M., Athanasiadis, G. et al. Endoscopic surgical simulation using low-fidelity and virtual reality transurethral resection simulators in urology simulation boot camp course: trainees feedback assessment study. World J Urol 39, 3103–3107 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03559-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03559-4