INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopy performed on anesthetized pigs is an established training model. In this pilot study, we performed laparoscopy on cadavers as a training modality for urologists participating in a laparoscopic seminar. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared data from two consecutive laparoscopy seminars performed at our institution. The first included a laparoscopy session performed on pigs. The second was in the same setup, yet laparoscopy was performed on fresh cadavers. We analyzed and compared the trainees' perspectives regarding the 2 modalities using a 5-scale satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: Seven trainees attended the cadaveric and 9 the porcine laparoscopy session. The two groups were similar in terms of age and previous laparoscopic and urological experience. The general satisfaction of the two training modalities was high in the two groups, as well as their will for another session of the same kind. Yet the trainees ranked their understanding of the surgical anatomy, laparoscopic technique and use of instruments significantly higher in the cadaveric laparoscopy group (p values were 0.007, 0.006 and 0.032, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cadaveric laparoscopy may offer an ideal surgical environment allowing dissection and performance of complete procedures. In this pilot study, we conducted the first reported cadaveric laparoscopy training seminar in urology. The trainees preferred the cadaveric laparoscopy and found it superior to porcine laparoscopy. We believe that cadaveric laparoscopy is an important training tool, which may be added to the armamentarium of urological laparoscopy training courses. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopy performed on anesthetized pigs is an established training model. In this pilot study, we performed laparoscopy on cadavers as a training modality for urologists participating in a laparoscopic seminar. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared data from two consecutive laparoscopy seminars performed at our institution. The first included a laparoscopy session performed on pigs. The second was in the same setup, yet laparoscopy was performed on fresh cadavers. We analyzed and compared the trainees' perspectives regarding the 2 modalities using a 5-scale satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: Seven trainees attended the cadaveric and 9 the porcine laparoscopy session. The two groups were similar in terms of age and previous laparoscopic and urological experience. The general satisfaction of the two training modalities was high in the two groups, as well as their will for another session of the same kind. Yet the trainees ranked their understanding of the surgical anatomy, laparoscopic technique and use of instruments significantly higher in the cadaveric laparoscopy group (p values were 0.007, 0.006 and 0.032, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cadaveric laparoscopy may offer an ideal surgical environment allowing dissection and performance of complete procedures. In this pilot study, we conducted the first reported cadaveric laparoscopy training seminar in urology. The trainees preferred the cadaveric laparoscopy and found it superior to porcine laparoscopy. We believe that cadaveric laparoscopy is an important training tool, which may be added to the armamentarium of urological laparoscopy training courses. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
Authors: Emre Huri; Andreas Skolarikos; İlkan Tatar; Murat Binbay; Mustafa Sofikerim; Emrah Yuruk; Tolga Karakan; Mustafa Sargon; Deniz Demiryurek; Roberto Miano; Murat Bagcioglu; Mehmet Ezer; Cecilia Maria Cracco; Cesare Marco Scoffone Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: G Cacciamani; V De Marco; S Siracusano; D De Marchi; L Bizzotto; M A Cerruto; G Motton; A B Porcaro; W Artibani Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2016-07-20
Authors: Kilian Wegmann; Andreas Harbrecht; Michael Hackl; Stephan Uschok; Tim Leschinger; Lars P Müller Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Felix Nickel; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Florian Rehberger; Jonathan David Hendrie; Benjamin Friedrich Berthold Mayer; Hannes Götz Kenngott; Vasile Bintintan; Georg Richard Linke; Lars Fischer; Beat Peter Müller-Stich Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sarah D Blaschko; H Mark Brooks; S Michael Dhuy; Cynthia Charest-Shell; Ralph V Clayman; Elspeth M McDougall Journal: JSLS Date: 2007 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.172