Abdullatif Aydin1, Kamran Ahmed2, Ahmed M A Shafi1, Muhammad Shamim Khan3, Prokar Dasgupta4. 1. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, United Kingdom. 2. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: kamran.ahmed@kcl.ac.uk. 3. Department of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom. 4. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Over the past few decades, simulation-based training has rapidly been adopted by many centres for effective technical and non-technical skills training, as a supplementary method to traditional operating room experience. The aim of this study is to assess the current practice in training and seek opinion regarding the future role of simulation in urological training. METHODS: A cross sectional survey was designed and distributed amongst expert and trainee urological surgeons. The survey consisted of twenty-two questions that were split into three sections; Introduction (6), Technical Skills training in urology (10) and Non-technical skills training in urology (6). RESULTS: A total of 91 residents and 172 specialists completed the survey. In both groups, there was an agreed consensus that laparoscopic training and exposure was insufficient as only 21% of trainees and 23% of specialists believed that they had sufficient training in this area. Furthermore, both groups lacked simulation-based training in common urological procedures including nephrectomy (62%), cystoscopy (69-74%), ureteroscopy (47-59%), transurethral resection of the prostate (56-65%) and percutaneous renal surgery (76-73%). 90% of trainees and 70% of specialists believed (agreed and strongly agreed) that there is a role for non-technical skills simulation in urological training. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation training has been under-used thus far and trainees face an uphill challenge to enhance their skills and technical abilities in the operating room. Simulation is recommended by both trainees and specialists and may represent one of the solutions to the challenges of safe and effective urology procedural training.
INTRODUCTION: Over the past few decades, simulation-based training has rapidly been adopted by many centres for effective technical and non-technical skills training, as a supplementary method to traditional operating room experience. The aim of this study is to assess the current practice in training and seek opinion regarding the future role of simulation in urological training. METHODS: A cross sectional survey was designed and distributed amongst expert and trainee urological surgeons. The survey consisted of twenty-two questions that were split into three sections; Introduction (6), Technical Skills training in urology (10) and Non-technical skills training in urology (6). RESULTS: A total of 91 residents and 172 specialists completed the survey. In both groups, there was an agreed consensus that laparoscopic training and exposure was insufficient as only 21% of trainees and 23% of specialists believed that they had sufficient training in this area. Furthermore, both groups lacked simulation-based training in common urological procedures including nephrectomy (62%), cystoscopy (69-74%), ureteroscopy (47-59%), transurethral resection of the prostate (56-65%) and percutaneous renal surgery (76-73%). 90% of trainees and 70% of specialists believed (agreed and strongly agreed) that there is a role for non-technical skills simulation in urological training. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation training has been under-used thus far and trainees face an uphill challenge to enhance their skills and technical abilities in the operating room. Simulation is recommended by both trainees and specialists and may represent one of the solutions to the challenges of safe and effective urology procedural training.
Authors: Diego M Carrion; Moises E Rodriguez-Socarrás; Guglielmo Mantica; Francesco Esperto; Angelika Cebulla; Diederick Duijvesz; Giulio Patruno; Juan L Vásquez; Domenico Veneziano; Jesús Díez-Sebastian; Ali S Gozen; Joan Palou; Juan Gómez Rivas Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-04-13 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Yasser A Noureldin; David M Hoenig; Philip Zhao; Sammy E Elsamra; Joshua Stern; Geoffrey Gaunay; Piruz Motamedinia; Zeph Okeke; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Robert M Sweet Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Anna H de Vries; Barbara M A Schout; Jeroen J G van Merriënboer; Rob C M Pelger; Evert L Koldewijn; Arno M M Muijtjens; Cordula Wagner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Tiago Ribeiro de Oliveira; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Sérgio Pereira; Pedro Oliveira; Sandro Gaspar; Nuno Domingues; Tito Leitão; Artur Palmas; Tomé Lopes; Hein Van Poppel Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2019-05-10
Authors: Guglielmo Mantica; Federica Balzarini; Federico Dotta; Moises Rodriguez-Socarras; Silvia Proietti; Guido Giusti; Francesco Oneto; Marco Di Pierro; Paolo Traverso; Carlo Terrone Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2019-04-24
Authors: Cora Griffin; Abdullatif Aydın; Oliver Brunckhorst; Nicholas Raison; Muhammad Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta; Kamran Ahmed Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 4.226