Domenico Veneziano1,2, Giuseppe Morgia3, Tommaso Castelli4, Sebastiano Cimino3, Giorgio Russo3, Salvatore Privitera3, Ali Goezen5, Ben Van Cleynenbreugel6, Kamran Ahmed7, Bhaskar Somani8, Daniele Urzì4. 1. Department of Urology and Kidney Transplant, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano, Reggio Calabria, Italy. info@domenicoveneziano.it. 2. School of Medicine, Hofstra Northwell University, New York, USA. info@domenicoveneziano.it. 3. Department of Urology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 4. Department of Urology and Kidney Transplant, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano, Reggio Calabria, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, SLK Klinik, Heilbronn, Germany. 6. Department of Urology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 7. Department of Urology, King's College Hospital, London, UK. 8. Department of Urology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Standardization of hands-on training (HoT) has profoundly impacted the educational field in the last decade. To provide quality training sessions on a global scale, the European School of Urology Training group developed a teaching guide for tutors in 2015. Our study aims to understand whether this guide alone can provide information enough to match the performance improvement guaranteed by an expert tutor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 4 randomized groups of participants underwentHoT sessions with different teaching modalities: an expert surgeon (group 1), an expert E-BLUS tutor (group 2), E-BLUS guide alone (group 3), no tutor (group 4). Groups 1 and 2 were respectively provided with two different tutors to avoid biases related to personal tutor ability. Along the training session, each participant could perform five trials on two E-BLUS tasks: Peg transfer and Knot tying. During trials 1 and 5, completion time and number of errors were recorded for analysis with Pi-score algorithm. The average per-group Pi-scores were then compared to measure different performance improvement results. RESULTS:60 participants from Italy were enrolled and randomized into four groups of 15. Pi-scores recorded on Peg transfer task were 24,6 (group 1), 26,4 (group 2), 42,2 (group 3), 11,7 (group 4). Pi-scores recorded on Knot tying task were 33,2 (group 1), 31,3 (group 2), 37,5 (group 3), 18,6 (group 4). CONCLUSION: Compared to a human tutor, standardized teaching with the EBLUS guide may produce similar performance improvement. This evidence opens doors to automated teaching and to several novelties in hands-on training.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Standardization of hands-on training (HoT) has profoundly impacted the educational field in the last decade. To provide quality training sessions on a global scale, the European School of Urology Training group developed a teaching guide for tutors in 2015. Our study aims to understand whether this guide alone can provide information enough to match the performance improvement guaranteed by an expert tutor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 4 randomized groups of participants underwent HoT sessions with different teaching modalities: an expert surgeon (group 1), an expert E-BLUS tutor (group 2), E-BLUS guide alone (group 3), no tutor (group 4). Groups 1 and 2 were respectively provided with two different tutors to avoid biases related to personal tutor ability. Along the training session, each participant could perform five trials on two E-BLUS tasks: Peg transfer and Knot tying. During trials 1 and 5, completion time and number of errors were recorded for analysis with Pi-score algorithm. The average per-group Pi-scores were then compared to measure different performance improvement results. RESULTS: 60 participants from Italy were enrolled and randomized into four groups of 15. Pi-scores recorded on Peg transfer task were 24,6 (group 1), 26,4 (group 2), 42,2 (group 3), 11,7 (group 4). Pi-scores recorded on Knot tying task were 33,2 (group 1), 31,3 (group 2), 37,5 (group 3), 18,6 (group 4). CONCLUSION: Compared to a human tutor, standardized teaching with the EBLUS guide may produce similar performance improvement. This evidence opens doors to automated teaching and to several novelties in hands-on training.
Authors: Frederico T G Furriel; Maria P Laguna; Arnaldo J C Figueiredo; Pedro T C Nunes; Jens J Rassweiler Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Domenico Veneziano; Antonio Canova; Michiel Arnolds; John D Beatty; Chandra S Biyani; Federico Dehò; Cristian Fiori; Giles O Hellawell; J F Langenhuijsen; Giovannalberto Pini; Oscar Rodriguez Faba; Giampaolo Siena; Andreas Skolarikos; Theodoros Tokas; Ben S E P Van Cleynenbreugel; Christian Wagner; Giovanni Tripepi; Bhaskar Somani; Bhaskar Lima Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Bhaskar K Somani; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Ali Gozen; Jaun Palou; Sas Barmoshe; Shekhar Biyani; Josep M Gaya; Giles Hellawell; Giovannalberto Pini; Faba R Oscar; Rafael Sanchez Salas; Petr Macek; Andreas Skolarikos; Christian Wagner; Viktor Eret; Stephen Haensel; Giampaolo Siena; Marek Schmidt; Max Klitsch; Stepan Vesely; Achilles Ploumidis; Silvia Proietti; Guido Kamphuis; Theodore Tokas; Rob Geraghty; Dominico Veneziano Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2018-03-14
Authors: M Abdessater; M Rouprêt; V Misrai; X Matillon; B Gondran-Tellier; L Freton; M Vallée; I Dominique; M Felber; Z-E Khene; E Fortier; F Lannes; C Michiels; T Grevez; N Szabla; J Boustany; F Bardet; K Kaulanjan; E Seizilles de Mazancourt; G Ploussard; U Pinar; B Pradere Journal: Prog Urol Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 0.915