A Cost-effective, Easily Reproducible, Suprapubic Catheter Insertion Simulation Training Model

Hossack, Tania; Chris, Barrington-Brown; Beer, J N de; Thompson, Graeme

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.013

Cited by 23 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the analysis of the six articles found, it was verified that three of them are related to the insertion of suprapubic catheters models [9][10][11] , one article described the use of a computer software associated to sensors in the mannequin to evaluate precisely the quality of the procedure 12 ; other article proposed a model with cadavers and the last one a porcine model 13 (Table 1). Regarding the publication dates of the papers, the oldest one was published in the year 2000 and the most recent in 2015.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It is important to point out that the three models were published at the same journal (Urology), however in different years: the Singal et al 9 model is the most recent one and was published in January 2015; the Hossack et al 10 model was published in October 2013 and the oldest model, from Shergill et al 11 was published in July 2008.…”

Section: Suprapubic Cathetersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Out of the three articles found, only Singal et al 9 model was evaluated to be used as a teaching tool. The Hossack et al 10 model and Shergill et al 11 model were used and evaluated only by surgery residents and newly graduated physicians, respectively.…”

Section: Suprapubic Cathetersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Training models of male urinary catheterization

Silva¹,

Tembra²,

Cunha³

et al. 2018

PRMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Suprapubic Cathetersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Training models of male urinary catheterization

Silva¹,

Tembra²,

Cunha³

et al. 2018

PRMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was no discussion of validation of this particular model. Another box-trainer constructed of Tupperware ® (Tupperware Brands Corporation, US), using sponge, mefix and transpore to replicate the layers of the abdominal wall was constructed for less than 3$ [ 13 ]. 24 of 25 participants felt that the model was representative of a bladder.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-cost simulation models in Urology: a systematic review of the literature

Pelly

Shanmugathas

Bowyer

et al. 2020

Cent european J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Simulation models have been found to be effective and valid for training in Urology. Due to increasing costs of surgical training, there is a need for low-cost simulation models to enable Urology trainees to improve their skills Material and methods A literature review was performed using the PubMed and Embase databases until March 2020. A total of 157 abstracts were identified using the search criteria, of which 20 articles were identified describing simulation models for Urology training. Articles reviewed described simulation models created from materials costing less than $150. Data was extracted from the relevant articles in order to critically assess each paper for validity, ease of construct and educational impact. Results Models were found pertaining to suprapubic catheterization (6), cystoscopy (3), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (5), scrotal examination (1), circumcision (1), ureteroscopy (1), transurethral resection of the prostate and bladder (2), and open prostatectomy (1). 18/20 (90%) assessed for either face, content, or construct validity. None of the papers evaluated assessed for transferability of skills to performance in real patients. Conclusions A plethora of low-cost simulation models for urological procedures are described in the literature, many of which can be easily constructed from cheap and accessible materials. However there is a need for further efforts to validate or assess for transferability of skills to clinical practice.

show abstract

“…Other SPC models have been described but were of higher cost ($488 for training of 30 residents) and were not validated. 7 Strengths of this simulator include being low cost; $31.28 for the initial model, with the bladder, skin, and fat layers needing to be replaced periodically. Furthermore, this model can be easily reproduced for training programs and is compatible with other SPC kits.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%