Christopher Berridge1, Mithun Kailavasan1, Grigorios Athanasiadis2, Agapios Gkentzis3, Tariq Tassadaq4, Victor Palit5, Bhavan Rai6, Chandra S Biyani7, Ghulam Nabi8. 1. Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK. 2. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK. 3. Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, UK. 4. Bedford General Hospital, Bedford, UK. 5. Consultant Urologist & Hon Senior Lecturer, Department of Urology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. 6. Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK. 7. Consultant Urologist & Hon Senior Lecturer, Department of Urology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. shekharbiyani@hotmail.com. 8. University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to study trainees' feedback and rating of models for training transurethral resection of bladder lesions (TURBT) and prostate (TURP) during simulation. METHODS: The study was performed during the ''Transurethral resection (TUR) module" at the boot camp held in 2019. Prior to the course, all trainees were required to evaluate their experience in performing TURBT and TURP procedures. Trainees simulated resection on two different models; low-fidelity tissue model (Samed, GmBH, Dresden, Germany) and virtual reality simulator (TURPMentor, 3D Systems, Littleton, US). Following the completion of the module, trainees completed a questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate their assessment of the models for surgical training. RESULTS: In total, 174 simulation assessments were performed by 56 trainees (Samed Bladder-40, Prostate-45, TURPMentor Bladder-51, Prostate-37). All trainees reported that they had performed < 50 TUR procedures. The Samed model median scores were for appearance (4/5), texture (5/5), feel (5/5) and conductibility (5/5). The TURPMentor median score was for appearance (4/5), texture and feel (4/5) and conductibility (4/5). The most common criticism of the Samed model was that it failed to mimic bleeding. In contrast, trainees felt that the TURPMentor haptic feedback was inadequate to allow for close resection and did not calibrate movements accurately. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that both forms of simulators (low-fidelity and virtual reality) were rated highly by urology trainees and improve their confidence in performing transurethral resection and in fact complement each other in providing lower tract endoscopic resection simulation.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to study trainees' feedback and rating of models for training transurethral resection of bladder lesions (TURBT) and prostate (TURP) during simulation. METHODS: The study was performed during the ''Transurethral resection (TUR) module" at the boot camp held in 2019. Prior to the course, all trainees were required to evaluate their experience in performing TURBT and TURP procedures. Trainees simulated resection on two different models; low-fidelity tissue model (Samed, GmBH, Dresden, Germany) and virtual reality simulator (TURPMentor, 3D Systems, Littleton, US). Following the completion of the module, trainees completed a questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate their assessment of the models for surgical training. RESULTS: In total, 174 simulation assessments were performed by 56 trainees (Samed Bladder-40, Prostate-45, TURPMentor Bladder-51, Prostate-37). All trainees reported that they had performed < 50 TUR procedures. The Samed model median scores were for appearance (4/5), texture (5/5), feel (5/5) and conductibility (5/5). The TURPMentor median score was for appearance (4/5), texture and feel (4/5) and conductibility (4/5). The most common criticism of the Samed model was that it failed to mimic bleeding. In contrast, trainees felt that the TURPMentor haptic feedback was inadequate to allow for close resection and did not calibrate movements accurately. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that both forms of simulators (low-fidelity and virtual reality) were rated highly by urology trainees and improve their confidence in performing transurethral resection and in fact complement each other in providing lower tract endoscopic resection simulation.