Jason Ooi1, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Donald L Murphy. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Geelong Hospital, Victoria, Australia., Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the construction of a simple training model from reconfigured chicken skin to simulate open and laparoscopic reconstructive pyeloplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reconfiguring and suturing chicken skin dissected off its muscle creates a model of the ureteropelvic junction. Dismembered pyeloplasty techniques may be practiced with open or laparoscopic equipment. Students with prior training in suturing and knot-tying only used the open pyeloplasty model on three occasions. Urology trainees experienced in surgery but not laparoscopic pyeloplasty used the model laparoscopically. RESULTS: Students demonstrated a significant improvement (P < 0.05) between their first (17.00 +/- 4.44 minutes; mean +/- 95% CI) and third (11.33 +/- 2.40 minutes) attempts using the open model. Urology trainees improved their mean times from the first (18.0 minutes) to third (11.8 minutes) attempts using the laparoscopic model. CONCLUSIONS: This cheap and readily available model is reproducible and applicable to training in both open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the construction of a simple training model from reconfigured chicken skin to simulate open and laparoscopic reconstructive pyeloplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reconfiguring and suturing chicken skin dissected off its muscle creates a model of the ureteropelvic junction. Dismembered pyeloplasty techniques may be practiced with open or laparoscopic equipment. Students with prior training in suturing and knot-tying only used the open pyeloplasty model on three occasions. Urology trainees experienced in surgery but not laparoscopic pyeloplasty used the model laparoscopically. RESULTS: Students demonstrated a significant improvement (P < 0.05) between their first (17.00 +/- 4.44 minutes; mean +/- 95% CI) and third (11.33 +/- 2.40 minutes) attempts using the open model. Urology trainees improved their mean times from the first (18.0 minutes) to third (11.8 minutes) attempts using the laparoscopic model. CONCLUSIONS: This cheap and readily available model is reproducible and applicable to training in both open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Authors: R Rabenalt; D Minh; A Dietel; B Bynens; S Papadoukakis; A McNeill; E Liatsikos; M Truss; J-U Stolzenburg Journal: Urologe A Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: O Reichelt; A Borkowetz; A Chyhrai; E Tanovic; T Weirich; T Müller; H Schubert; J Schubert Journal: Urologe A Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Francesca Palmisani; Patrick Sezen; Elisabeth Haag; Martin L Metzelder; Wilfried Krois Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 3.569
Authors: Abhishek G Singh; Shrikant J Jai; Arvind P Ganpule; Mohankumar Vijayakumar; Ravindra B Sabnis; Mahesh R Desai Journal: Indian J Urol Date: 2018 Jul-Sep