Is there a place for virtual reality simulators in assessment of competency in percutaneous renal access?

Abstract

The PCNL-GRS in combination with the PERC Mentor™ simulator was able to differentiate between competent and non-competent PGTs.

Simulation for Percutaneous Renal Access: Where Are We?

“…Few studies were found on assessment of PCA skills. 12,13 The biological bench models used porcine or bovine kidneys wrapped within foam, 14 foam in a mannequin, 15 silicone, 16 chicken carcass, 17,18 full-thickness skin flap, 19,20 or additional subcutaneous fascia, muscle, 21 and ribs. 22 Other nonbiological bench models used prototyping or 3D printing.…”

“…27 The PERC MentorÔ (Simbionix, Cleveland, OH) was the only VR simulator that has been validated for training and assessment of PCA skills. 12,13,[28][29][30][31] However, none of these studies assessed the educational impact of PCA simulators in terms of transferring PCA skills from the benchtop to the OR. Furthermore, most of these studies did not address the validity and the cost of these simulators.…”

“…Objective assessment from VR simulators could be combined with validated subjective assessment tools, such as the global rating scale (GRS) and objective structured assessment of technical skills, to assess transfer of these skills to the OR. 13,53 The GRS has been validated for assessing competency of trainees and specialists in real and simulated environments. [53][54][55] Simulators used for assessment of PCA skills include human cadavers, live animals, and VR simulators to simulate human patients.…”

“…[53][54][55] Simulators used for assessment of PCA skills include human cadavers, live animals, and VR simulators to simulate human patients. 56,57 In a recent study by Noureldin et al, 12,13 the PERC Mentor simulator was incorporated into urology objective structured clinical examinations to assess PCA skills of PGTs. PGTs with previous PCA experience had performed the PCA with significantly shorter FT (5.1 -0.7 vs 10 -1.5; p = 0.04), fewer infundibular injuries (2 -0.4 vs 7.4 -1.5; p = 0.004), fewer PCS perforations (4.5 -1.2 vs 11 -1.7; p = 0.01), and fewer attempts to puncture the PCS (13 -1.8 vs 21 -2.3; p = 0.02) when compared with PGTs without previous PCA experience, respectively.…”

Review of the effect of 3D medical printing and virtual reality on urology training with ‘MedTRain3DModsim’ Erasmus + European Union Project

“…Noureldin et al [39] studied the competency of urology postgraduate trainees (PGTs) in PCA. When compared with the 21 PGTs without practice, all 5 PGTs who had practiced on the simulator were competent, performed the task with significantly shorter operative and fluoroscopy time, and had significantly higher scores and successful attempts to access renal calyces.…”