AIM: To provide an evidence-based analysis on the status and perspectives of laparoscopic training in urologic surgery. METHODS: A thorough review of the current literature was performed as of January 31, 2009, using the Medline database through a PubMed search. The search protocol included a free-text query using the following terms: "training," "urologic laparoscopy," "urology," and "laparoscopy." Suitable articles were selected on the basis of the study content. The following issues were addressed: prediction of laparoscopic skills and transfer of training in clinical practice; homemade and commercially available laparoscopic trainers and simulators; training models for specific laparoscopic procedures; mentored training programs; formal training programs; and the impact of robotics in laparoscopic training. RESULTS: Currently available tools predicting laparoscopic skills lack adequate validation to justify their widespread adoption. There still is not enough evidence to show definite transfer of skills from currently available simulators to the operating theater. Learning opportunities continue to evolve. Specific models have been developed for complex procedures. Various informal training programs exist, yet most urologists will not be able to complete a formal fellowship. Postgraduate urologists may possibly be more rapidly and efficiently trained using a structured mentoring program. Robotics is likely to have an increasing role in teaching urological laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in recent years and an extensive amount of data from the urological literature, the ideal training program in urological laparoscopy remains a goal to be determined objectively.
AIM: To provide an evidence-based analysis on the status and perspectives of laparoscopic training in urologic surgery. METHODS: A thorough review of the current literature was performed as of January 31, 2009, using the Medline database through a PubMed search. The search protocol included a free-text query using the following terms: "training," "urologic laparoscopy," "urology," and "laparoscopy." Suitable articles were selected on the basis of the study content. The following issues were addressed: prediction of laparoscopic skills and transfer of training in clinical practice; homemade and commercially available laparoscopic trainers and simulators; training models for specific laparoscopic procedures; mentored training programs; formal training programs; and the impact of robotics in laparoscopic training. RESULTS: Currently available tools predicting laparoscopic skills lack adequate validation to justify their widespread adoption. There still is not enough evidence to show definite transfer of skills from currently available simulators to the operating theater. Learning opportunities continue to evolve. Specific models have been developed for complex procedures. Various informal training programs exist, yet most urologists will not be able to complete a formal fellowship. Postgraduate urologists may possibly be more rapidly and efficiently trained using a structured mentoring program. Robotics is likely to have an increasing role in teaching urological laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in recent years and an extensive amount of data from the urological literature, the ideal training program in urological laparoscopy remains a goal to be determined objectively.
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