Simulation-Based Training Models for Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review

Aydın, Abdullatif; Baig, Umair; Al-Jabir, Ahmed; Sarıca, Kemal; Ahmed, Kamran

doi:10.1089/end.2020.0408

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 103 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SIMULATE trial is the first multi-centred superiority randomised controlled trial looking into the incorporation of simulation-based ureteroscopy training. They showed that simulation-based curricula have good educational value and have shown statistically significant improvement in consecutive semi-rigid and flexible ureteroscopy [13][14][15][16]. The Dutch Urology Practical Skills (D-UPS) training program was developed after identifying the procedural steps, potential pitfalls and learning objectives of appropriate identified technical skills.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The design and validation of a low-cost trans perineal (TP) prostate biopsy simulator for training: improving trainees’ confidence and cognitive targeting skills

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this research was to create a novel and low-cost TP prostate biopsy simulator that has face, content and construct validity with high educational value. Methods This research developed a trans perineal prostate (TP) biopsy simulator using 3D-printed moulds and tissue-mimicking materials. Important regions (anterior, mid, and posterior zones) were coded with different colours. Ultrasound visible abnormal lesions were embedded in the prostate phantom. Expert and novice participants in TP biopsies were recruited. Essential skills were identified through the consensus of six experts. These skills were assessed through tasks performed by participants. This included the accuracy and timing of systematic and target biopsies. Immediate feedback was determined by the colour of the biopsy cores taken. A survey was distributed to evaluate its realism and educational value. Results The material cost of one simulator was £7.50. This simulator was proven to have face, content, and construct validity. There was a significant difference ( p = 0.02) in the accuracy of systematic biopsies between both experts and novices. Significant difference was also observed ( p = 0.01), in accurately identifying target lesion on ultrasound between both groups. Participants rated the overall realism of the simulator 4.57/5 (range 3–5). 100% of the experts agreed that introducing this simulator to training will be beneficial. 85.7% of the participants strongly agree that the simulator improved their confidence in TP biopsies. Conclusion There is value in integrating this proof-of-concept TP prostate biopsy simulator into training. It has highly rated educational value and has face, content, and construct validity. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-023-04387-y.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The design and validation of a low-cost trans perineal (TP) prostate biopsy simulator for training: improving trainees’ confidence and cognitive targeting skills

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several authors, who have performed systematic reviews about simulation methods in urology, 11,[24][25][26][27] concluded that there is still lack of high level of evidence about the value of those methods, especially concerning the transferability of trainees' skills in the clinical setting. Although, in the modern era, the technological evolution has resulted in the development of a variety of virtual and physical simulators, there is still lack of evidence that cadaverbased urology training can be adequately replaced by the modern simulation modalities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Thiel‐embalmed cadavers in urology training and their ability to retain real‐life anatomy: a systematic review

Chytas

Gyftopoulos

2023

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Thiel‐embalmed cadavers (TeCs) have been proposed as an alternative and probably safer method of surgical training, compared to formalin‐embalmed cadavers. We aimed to perform a systematic review on the use of TeCs in urology training and their ability to represent real‐life anatomy. Methods PubMed, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases were searched for articles with purpose to explore the use of TeCs in urology training, without date restrictions, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement. From each paper, we evaluated the type of procedure, the number of participants, the type of study, the educational outcomes and their level, according to Kirkpatrick hierarchy. Results Of the 225 records initially retrieved, eight articles were eventually included. All studies evaluated participants' perceptions about the procedure. Overall, urology trainees and specialists have positively commented on the educational value of TeCs, which have been also found able to adequately mimic real‐life conditions. In all the eight studies, trainees stated that tissue quality of TeCs was adequately realistic and considered TeCs as a useful surgical training tool. Conclusion Although the use of TeCs in urology training has so far been limited, their value as a surgical training tool has been positively perceived. These outcomes suggest that TeCs may also enhance urology trainees' surgical skills and may encourage their implementation as a simulation tool in urology training.

show abstract

“…Additionally, it was recommended as a standard by the American Educational Research Association. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Nevertheless, this was clearly limited as only one study (1.3%) followed Messick’s modern concept of validity and featured all five validity criteria. 65 This corresponds to a surgical review that found only 6.6% of studies used the modern concept of validity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Validity studies were assessed using Messick's modern concept of validity framework, which has been widely utilized in the literature. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] This evaluated the strength of each source of validity evidence using five parameters (Table 1), quantified by Beckman et al 's rating scale, which indicated the strength of validity of each parameter using a scale from 0 to 2 (Table 2). 27 Potential author bias and selective outcome reporting was assessed on a study level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%