Advertisement

Training in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

  • Abdullatif Aydın
  • Ahmed Al-Jabir
  • Brandon Smith
  • Kamran AhmedEmail author
Chapter
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

With limited time for training, simulation is becoming an essential element of modern surgical training to establish procedural competency. Whilst training tools and assessment methods are well-established in other urological procedures, there is a paucity of research and well-validated models for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) training. Various bench models as well as a select number of wet-lab and virtual reality models exist. Additionally, assessment tools are being developed for objective assessment of surgical competency in PCNL; however, these are in their infancy. It is recommended that urological trainees undergo training in PCNL in a modular fashion comprising progression from virtual reality models and bench models to wet-lab and cadaveric training, before moving on to modular operating room training and mastery of the procedure.

Keywords

Surgical simulation Training Assessment Nephrolithiasis Percutaneous nephrolithotomy 

References

  1. 1.
    Wignall GR, Denstedt JD, Preminger GM, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS, Sweet RM, et al. Surgical simulation: a urological perspective. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1690–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quirke K, Aydin A, Brunckhorst O, Bultitude M, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, et al. Learning curves in urolithiasis surgery: a systematic review. J Endourol. 2018;32(11):1008–20.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chikwe J, de Souza AC, Pepper JR. No time to train the surgeons. BMJ. 2004;328(7437):418–9.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7437.418.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wade RG, Henderson J. Perceived impact of EWTD on UK doctors. Bulletin R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91(4):132–4.  https://doi.org/10.1308/147363509x424264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schueneman AL, Pickleman J, Hesslein R, Freeark RJ. Neuropsychologic predictors of operative skill among general surgery residents. Surgery. 1984;96(2):288–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibbons RD, Baker RJ, Skinner DB. Field articulation testing: a predictor of technical skills in surgical residents. J Surg Res. 1986;41(1):53–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4804(86)90008-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    RCoS. The implementation of the working time directive, and its impact on the NHS and health professionals—report of the independent working time regulations taskforce to the Department of Health: Royal College of surgeons. 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewin J, Ahmed K, Challacombe B. An update and review of simulation in urological training. Int J Surg. 2014;12(2):103–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.11.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aydin A, Raison N, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Simulation-based training and assessment in urological surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13(9):503–19.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2016.147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kneebone RL, Scott W, Darzi A, Horrocks M. Simulation and clinical practice: strengthening the relationship. Med Educ. 2004;38(10):1095–102.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01959.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):244–7.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9985.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Nortwick SS, Lendvay TS, Jensen AR, Wright AS, Horvath KD, Kim S. Methodologies for establishing validity in surgical simulation studies. Surgery. 2010;147(5):622–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shamim Khan M, Ahmed K, Gavazzi A, Gohil R, Thomas L, Poulsen J, et al. Development and implementation of centralized simulation training: evaluation of feasibility, acceptability and construct validity. BJU Int. 2013;111(3):518–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11204.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mishra S, Kurien A, Ganpule A, Muthu V, Sabnis R, Desai M. Percutaneous renal access training: content validation comparison between a live porcine and a virtual reality (VR) simulation model. BJU Int. 2010;106(11):1753–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09753.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knudsen BE, Matsumoto ED, Chew BH, Johnson B, Margulis V, Cadeddu JA, et al. A randomized, controlled, prospective study validating the acquisition of percutaneous renal collecting system access skills using a computer based hybrid virtual reality surgical simulator: phase I. J Urol. 2006;176(5):2173–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel D, El-Husseiny T, Moraitis K, Shaikh T, Buchholz N, Masood J, et al. 1332 assessing and developing percutaneous renal access skills of trainees using the state of the art PERC Mentor™ simulation trainer. J Urol. 2010;183(4S):e514.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ganpule AP, Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Muthu V, Desai MR. Evaluation and validation of virtual reality (VR) based simulation to develop endourological percutaneous renal access technique for urological trainees. J Urol. 2009;181(4S):491–2.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(09)61389-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan R, Aydin A, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Simulation-based training for prostate surgery. BJU Int. 2015;116(4):665–74.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12721.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sinha M, Krishnamoorthy V. Use of a vegetable model as a training tool for PCNL puncture. Indian J Urol. 2015;31(2):156–9.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.152922.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoznek A, Salomon L, de la Taille A, Yiou R, Vordos D, Larre S, et al. Simulation training in video-assisted urologic surgery. Curr Urol Rep. 2006;7(2):107–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-006-0068-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Veneziano D, Smith A, Reihsen T, Speich J, Sweet RM. The SimPORTAL fluoro-less C-arm trainer: an innovative device for percutaneous kidney access. J Endourol. 2015;29(2):240–5.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chrouser K, Marsh B, Sweet R. MP20-03 percutaneous access skill improvement after the AUA PCNL training course using the simportal fluoro-less C-arm trainer. J Urol. 2016;195(4S):e213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bozzini G, Provenzano M, Seveso M, Mandressi A, Buffi N, Guazzoni G, et al. MP20-01 realising a new model to train residents in nephrostomy tube placement and PCNL. J Urol. 2016;195(4):e212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahmed K, Jawad M, Dasgupta P, Darzi A, Athanasiou T, Khan MS. Assessment and maintenance of competence in urology. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7(7):403–13.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hart R, Karthigasu K. The benefits of virtual reality simulator training for laparoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(4):297–302.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e328216f5b7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noureldin YA, Andonian S. Simulation for percutaneous renal access: where are we? J Endourol. 2017;31(S1):S10–S9.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0587.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Sá Earp PP. Percutaneous renal surgery – new model for learning and training. Int Braz J Urol. 2003;29(2):151.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-55382003000200011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strohmaier WL, Giese A. Ex vivo training model for percutaneous renal surgery. Urol Res. 2005;33(3):191–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-005-0478-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Strohmaier WL, Giese A. Improved ex vivo training model for percutaneous renal surgery. Urol Res. 2009;37(2):107–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0180-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hacker A, Wendt-Nordahl G, Honeck P, Michel MS, Alken P, Knoll T. A biological model to teach percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique with ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided access. J Endourol. 2007;21(5):545–50.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.0327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hammond L, Ketchum J, Schwartz BF. A new approach to urology training: a laboratory model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 2004;172(5 Pt 1):1950–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jagtap J. 1333 surgical skills lab for percutaneous renal access training: content validation comparison between live porcine and VR simulation model. J Urol. 2010;183(4S):e515.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mishra S, Kurien A, Patel R, Patil P, Ganpule A, Muthu V, et al. Validation of virtual reality simulation for percutaneous renal access training. J Endourol. 2010;24(4):635–40.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang Y, Ou TW, Jia HG, Gao W, Cui X, Wu JT, et al. Novel biologic model for percutaneous renal surgery learning and training in the laboratory. Urology. 2008;72(3):513–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.05.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ahmed K, Aydin A, Dasgupta P, Khan MS, McCabe JE. A novel cadaveric simulation program in urology. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(4):556–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.01.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mortality SAoS. The Scottish audit of surgical mortality. Annual Report 2010. 2010.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ounounou E, Aydin A, Brunckhorst O, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Nontechnical skills in surgery: a systematic review of current training modalities. J Surg Educ. 2018;76:14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.05.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brunckhorst O, Shahid S, Aydin A, McIlhenny C, Khan S, Raza SJ, et al. Simulation-based ureteroscopy skills training curriculum with integration of technical and non-technical skills: a randomised controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(9):2728–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3996-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brewin J, Tang J, Dasgupta P, Khan MS, Ahmed K, Bello F, et al. Full immersion simulation: validation of a distributed simulation environment for technical and non-technical skills training in urology. BJU Int. 2015;116(1):156–62.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12875.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aydin A, Brunckhorst O, Aya H, Eldred-Evans D, Al-Jabir A, Brewin J, et al. MP20-04 development and validation of a Ureterorenoscopy non-technical skills curriculum. J Urol. 2016;195(4S):e213–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2773. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kassab E, Tun JK, Arora S, King D, Ahmed K, Miskovic D, et al. “Blowing up the barriers” in surgical training: exploring and validating the concept of distributed simulation. Ann Surg. 2011;254(6):1059–65.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318228944a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brunckhorst O, Shahid S, Aydin A, Khan S, McIlhenny C, Brewin J, et al. The relationship between technical and nontechnical skills within a simulation-based ureteroscopy training environment. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(5):1039–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.04.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abdelshehid CS, Quach S, Nelson C, Graversen J, Lusch A, Zarraga J, et al. High-fidelity simulation-based team training in urology: evaluation of technical and nontechnical skills of urology residents during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Surg Educ. 2013;70(5):588–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.04.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Canales C, McDougall EM, Lin S. High fidelity simulation based team training in urology: a preliminary interdisciplinary study of technical and nontechnical skills in laparoscopic complications management. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1385–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rashid P, Gianduzzo TR. Urology technical and non-technical skills development: the emerging role of simulation. BJU Int. 2016;117(Suppl 4):9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13259.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Truta TS, Boeriu CM, Copotoiu SM, Petrisor M, Turucz E, Vatau D, et al. Improving nontechnical skills of an interprofessional emergency medical team through a one day crisis resource management training. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(32):e11828.  https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000011828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yee B, Naik VN, Joo HS, Savoldelli GL, Chung DY, Houston PL, et al. Nontechnical skills in anesthesia crisis management with repeated exposure to simulation-based education. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(2):241–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Somasundram K, Spence H, Colquhoun AJ, McIlhenny C, Biyani CS, Jain S. Simulation in urology to train non-technical skills in ward rounds. BJU Int. 2018;122(4):705–12.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cuschieri A, Francis N, Crosby J, Hanna GB. What do master surgeons think of surgical competence and revalidation? Am J Surg. 2001;182(2):110–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997;84(2):273–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sarica K, Ahmed K, Abdullatif A, Veneziano D, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Serdar A et al. Education; Training|Uroweb. 2017. http://uroweb.org/section/eulis/education-training/.
  52. 52.
    Lovegrove C, Novara G, Mottrie A, Guru KA, Brown M, Challacombe B, et al. Structured and modular training pathway for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): validation of the RARP assessment score and learning curve assessment. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):526–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Quirke K, Aydin A, Lovegrove C, Bultitude M, Denstedt J, Dragos LB, et al. MP19–15 development and validation of a modular training and assessment score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2018;32:A187.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.29043.abstracts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Artibani W, Novara G. Cancer-related outcome and learning curve in retropubic radical prostatectomy: “if you need an operation, the most important step is to choose the right surgeon”. Eur Urol. 2008;53(5):874–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.087.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Allen D, O’Brien T, Tiptaft R, Glass J. Defining the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2005;19(3):279–82.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2005.19.279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bergmann T, Herrmann TRW, Schiller T, Zimmermann U, Burchardt M. Implementation of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP): comparison of the initial learning curve with the later on clinical routine in a tertiary centre. World J Urol. 2017;35(12):1933–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2069-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bucuras V, Bardan R, Muresan A, Cumpanas A, Balarie C, Secasan C, et al. VP04–09 The role of the learning curve in supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2011;25(S1):A292.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.2001.supp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Garg A, Yadav SS, Tomar V, Priyadarshi S, Giri V, Vyas N, et al. Prospective evaluation of learning curve of urology residents for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Pract. 2016;3(3):230–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2015.06.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jang WS, Choi KH, Yang SC, Han WK. The learning curve for flank percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a single surgeon’s experience. Korean J Urol. 2011;52(4):284–8.  https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2011.52.4.284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T, Wendt-Nordahl G. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under combined sonographic/radiologic guided puncture: results of a learning curve using the modified Clavien grading system. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1599–603.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-1016-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, Vasilas M, Panagopoulos V, Georgiopoulos I, Ozsoy M, et al. Modular training for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: the safe way to go. Arab J Urol. 2015;13(4):270–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.07.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Schilling D, Gakis G, Walcher U, Stenzl A, Nagele U. The learning curve in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: a 1-year retrospective evaluation of a novice and an expert. World J Urol. 2011;29(6):749–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0553-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Song Y, Ma Y, Song Y, Fei X. Evaluating the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy under total ultrasound guidance. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0132986.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132986.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tanriverdi O, Boylu U, Kendirci M, Kadihasanoglu M, Horasanli K, Miroglu C. The learning curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):206–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ziaee SA, Sichani MM, Kashi AH, Samzadeh M. Evaluation of the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2010;7(4):226–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdullatif Aydın
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ahmed Al-Jabir
    • 1
  • Brandon Smith
    • 1
  • Kamran Ahmed
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.MRC Centre for Transplantation, King’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.The London Clinic Centre for RoboticsLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of UrologyKing’s College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations