Construct Validity of the Pig Intestine Model in the Simulation of Laparoscopic Urethrovesical Anastomosis: Tools for Objective Evaluation

Boon, John R.; Salas, Nilson A.; Avila, Desiderio; Boone, Timothy B.; Lipshultz, Larry I.; Link, Richard E.

doi:10.1089/end.2008.0058

Cited by 29 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another model used for laparoscopic UVA is the porcine intestine model, which was also shown to have construct validity in the study carried out by Boon et al. . Jiang et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simulation‐based training for prostate surgery

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of the literature between 1999 and 2014 was performed. The search terms included a combination of urology, prostate surgery, robotic prostatectomy, laparoscopic prostatectomy, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), simulation, virtual reality, animal model, human cadavers, training, assessment, technical skills, validation and learning curves. Furthermore, relevant abstracts from the American Urological Association, European Association of Urology, British Association of Urological Surgeons and World Congress of Endourology meetings, between 1999 and 2013, were included. Only studies related to prostate surgery simulators were included; studies regarding other urological simulators were excluded. ResultsA total of 22 studies that carried out a validation study were identified. Five validated models and/or simulators were identified for TURP, one for photoselective vaporisation of the prostate, two for holmium enucleation of the prostate, three for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and four for robotassisted surgery. Of the TURP simulators, all five have demonstrated content validity, three face validity and four construct validity. The GreenLight laser simulator has demonstrated face, content and construct validities. The Kansai HoLEP Simulator has demonstrated face and content validity whilst the UroSim HoLEP Simulator has demonstrated face, content and construct validity. All three animal models for LRP have been shown to have construct validity whilst the chicken skin model was also content valid. Only two robotic simulators were identified with relevance to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, both of which demonstrated construct validity. ConclusionsA wide range of different simulators are available for prostate surgery, including synthetic bench models, virtual-reality platforms, animal models, human cadavers, distributed simulation and advanced training programmes and modules. The currently validated simulators can be used by healthcare organisations to provide supplementary training sessions for trainee surgeons. Further research should be conducted to validate simulated environments, to determine which simulators have greater efficacy than others and to assess the cost-effectiveness of the simulators and the transferability of skills learnt. With surgeons investigating new possibilities for easily reproducible and valid methods of training, simulation offers great scope for implementation alongside traditional methods of training.

show abstract

“…Another model used for laparoscopic UVA is the porcine intestine model, which was also shown to have construct validity in the study carried out by Boon et al. . Jiang et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another model used for laparoscopic UVA is the porcine intestine model, which was also shown to have construct validity in the study carried out by Boon et al [49]. Jiang et al [50] proposed the porcine model as a more effective, realistic and cheaper alternative to the chicken skin model for laparoscopic training.…”

Section: Animal Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation‐based training for prostate surgery

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 Standard box trainers consist of laparoscopic instruments, digital camera, monitor, light source and tissue-like materials. 17,18 There are also cheaper, more expensive and home-made options for training boxes. The principle of box trainers, however, has not changed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ‘standard laparoscopic box trainers’ represent real-life conditions during transperitoneal laparoscopical interventions of the upper tract?

Taş¹,

Çakıroğlu²

2019

Urologia Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The purpose of this study is to investigate the representativeness of the conventional laparoscopic standard box trainers in terms of real-life circumstances in transperitoneal laparoscopical interventions of the upper tract, using questionnaire inquiries with experienced surgeons. Materials and methods: The study was conducted with 44 laparoscopists, whose level of renal surgery experience was either high (primary surgeon in >100 cases), moderate (primary surgeon in >50 cases) or basic (primary surgeon in >20 cases). We used the box widely preferred in international training courses, which consists of a 10-mm 30° laparoscope, real endoscopic instruments, light source, monitor and chicken bone materials. Participants were asked whether they represent real-life situations while performing tasks by means of standard box trainers. Results: The medians of ‘restrained body posture of the surgeon’, ‘position of monitor’, ‘trocars entry slots’, ‘tissue distance and region’ and ‘limited field of movement and restricted working space’ were analysed on their difference from the ideal value. All the variables were shown to be significantly different from the ideal value of 5 (p < 0.001). These results suggest that experienced surgeons in our study did not find the box simulation conditions similar to real surgery conditions. Conclusion: Conventional laparoscopic trainer box, which is currently being used, is far from representing for the real situation in transperitoneal laparoscopical interventions of the upper tract.

show abstract

“…This model was also previously described by Boon et al and it avoids the drawbacks of the previous model as it imitates the human tissue and it gives the impression of a real-life laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. 21 In this task, we evaluated the trainees by the time needed to complete the anastomosis and by the amount of leakage after its completion. However, the analysis of the learning curve of the trainee showed that the improvement in the quality of the anastomosis was achieved before the improvement in the time needed to complete it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%