OBJECTIVE: We developed a simple, inexpensive model to simulate four reconstructive laparoscopic procedures: pyeloplasty, vesicourethral anastomosis, bladder injury repair, and partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Liquid silicone was applied in layers to a mold to create the 4-in-1 model. A questionnaire evaluating its face and content validity was distributed to postgraduate urologists participating in a mini-residency program at the University of California-Irvine (UCI), and in the 2006 American Urological Association Hands-On course on reconstructive laparoscopic pyeloplasty. RESULTS: A total of 56 postgraduate urologists used the model and completed an evaluation questionnaire. Ninety-four percent (51/54) and 96% (48/50) agreed that the model was helpful for practicing laparoscopic pyeloplasty and urethrovesical anastomosis, respectively. Urologists who were experienced in either performing laparoscopic pyeloplasty (n = 6) or robot-assisted and/or laparoscopic prostatectomy (n = 11) would recommend this model to surgeons in training. Overall, 94% (48/51) and 96% (50/52) of the respondents would recommend this model for postgraduate surgeons and residents, respectively. CONCLUSION: We present a versatile model for practicing laparoscopic and robotic suturing and knot-tying skills in four reconstructive urologic procedures. Our results support the face and content validity of this model for performing pyeloplasty and vesicourethral anastomoses.
OBJECTIVE: We developed a simple, inexpensive model to simulate four reconstructive laparoscopic procedures: pyeloplasty, vesicourethral anastomosis, bladder injury repair, and partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Liquid silicone was applied in layers to a mold to create the 4-in-1 model. A questionnaire evaluating its face and content validity was distributed to postgraduate urologists participating in a mini-residency program at the University of California-Irvine (UCI), and in the 2006 American Urological Association Hands-On course on reconstructive laparoscopic pyeloplasty. RESULTS: A total of 56 postgraduate urologists used the model and completed an evaluation questionnaire. Ninety-four percent (51/54) and 96% (48/50) agreed that the model was helpful for practicing laparoscopic pyeloplasty and urethrovesical anastomosis, respectively. Urologists who were experienced in either performing laparoscopic pyeloplasty (n = 6) or robot-assisted and/or laparoscopic prostatectomy (n = 11) would recommend this model to surgeons in training. Overall, 94% (48/51) and 96% (50/52) of the respondents would recommend this model for postgraduate surgeons and residents, respectively. CONCLUSION: We present a versatile model for practicing laparoscopic and robotic suturing and knot-tying skills in four reconstructive urologic procedures. Our results support the face and content validity of this model for performing pyeloplasty and vesicourethral anastomoses.