Yasser A Noureldin1,2, Sero Andonian1. 1. 1 Division of Urology, McGill University , Montréal, Québec, Canada . 2. 2 Urology Department, Benha University Hospital, Benha University , Benha, Egypt .
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous renal access (PCA) is a challenging step during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The aim of this study is to review the literature for different types of simulators described for PCA. METHODS: Databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, OvidSP, and Google Scholar were systematically searched until May 2016. The studies were analyzed regarding the type of simulator (nonbiologic, biologic, live animal, and virtual reality [VR]), type of validity (face, content, construct, and predictive), cost-effectiveness, and whether these simulators have been used for training and/or assessment of PCA. In addition, the study looked at the educational impact of these simulators in terms of the transfer of PCA skills to the operating room. RESULTS: Several bench, animal, and VR simulators for training in PCA were identified. Only few studies were found on assessment of PCA skills. Biological bench models used porcine or bovine kidneys wrapped within foam, silicone, chicken carcass, or full-thickness skin flap alone. Other biological models used additional subcutaneous fascia, muscle, or ribs. Nonbiological models used prototypes, including 3D printing. Only one study reported the use of anesthetized live pig for training. The PERC Mentor™ was the only VR simulator, which has been validated for training and assessment of PCA skills. However, none of these studies assessed the educational impact of PCA simulators. Furthermore, most of the studies did not address the validity and the cost of the simulator. CONCLUSIONS: While several biological and nonbiological PCA models exist, there is paucity of literature regarding the validity and educational impact of these simulators. The PERC Mentor simulator is the sole validated simulator for training and assessment of PCA skills. However, it is expensive and there is little evidence of its educational impact. Therefore, more research is needed to validate the available simulators and assess their educational impact for urology trainees.
OBJECTIVES:Percutaneous renal access (PCA) is a challenging step during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The aim of this study is to review the literature for different types of simulators described for PCA. METHODS: Databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, OvidSP, and Google Scholar were systematically searched until May 2016. The studies were analyzed regarding the type of simulator (nonbiologic, biologic, live animal, and virtual reality [VR]), type of validity (face, content, construct, and predictive), cost-effectiveness, and whether these simulators have been used for training and/or assessment of PCA. In addition, the study looked at the educational impact of these simulators in terms of the transfer of PCA skills to the operating room. RESULTS: Several bench, animal, and VR simulators for training in PCA were identified. Only few studies were found on assessment of PCA skills. Biological bench models used porcine or bovine kidneys wrapped within foam, silicone, chicken carcass, or full-thickness skin flap alone. Other biological models used additional subcutaneous fascia, muscle, or ribs. Nonbiological models used prototypes, including 3D printing. Only one study reported the use of anesthetized live pig for training. The PERC Mentor™ was the only VR simulator, which has been validated for training and assessment of PCA skills. However, none of these studies assessed the educational impact of PCA simulators. Furthermore, most of the studies did not address the validity and the cost of the simulator. CONCLUSIONS: While several biological and nonbiological PCA models exist, there is paucity of literature regarding the validity and educational impact of these simulators. The PERC Mentor simulator is the sole validated simulator for training and assessment of PCA skills. However, it is expensive and there is little evidence of its educational impact. Therefore, more research is needed to validate the available simulators and assess their educational impact for urology trainees.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical skills; computer simulation; outcome and process assessment; percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Authors: Connor M Forbes; Jonathan Lim; Justin Chan; Ryan F Paterson; Mantu Gupta; Ben H Chew; Kymora Scotland Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.862
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: 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: İlkan Tatar; Emre Huri; İlker Selçuk; Young Lee Moon; Alberto Paoluzzi; Andreas Skolarikos Journal: Turk J Med Sci Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 0.973
Authors: Jacob Hindrik Antunes Smit; Eduardo Piotto Leonardi; Rosa Helena de Figueiredo Chaves; Ismari Perini Furlaneto; Cezar Massoud Salame da Silva; Simone de Campos Vieira Abib; Adenauer Marinho de Oliveira Góes Junior Journal: Acta Cir Bras Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 1.388