Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Simulation in Genitourinary Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Comprehensive Textbook of Healthcare Simulation

  • 5102 Accesses

Abstract

Contemporary urologists are expected to learn an array of surgical techniques and procedures including open abdominal surgery, complex endoscopic surgery, percutaneous surgery, and laparoscopic surgery and the principles of implant surgery. Simulation will never be able to replace clinical experience and hands-on training; however, currently available urology simulation may help decrease the initial stages of the learning curve in a forgiving environment without compromising patient safety. This chapter reviews the original urology simulation of placing urethral catheters in penile models. This simple task training has been shown to improve competency in urethral catheter placement. Urology is a task-driven specialty and this chapter will review the currently available simulation devices for tasks such as transurethral resection of prostate, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy, and ureteroscopy. There is currently an inadequacy of laparoscopic and robotic training prior to entering the operating room. Along those lines it has been demonstrated that laparoscopic and robotic surgical complications decrease with experience. The chapter gives a detailed overview of the currently available low-fidelity and virtual reality simulation available for laparoscopic and robotic training. The common theme of these simulators is excellent benefit for early adopters but a decreasing benefit to the experienced endoscopic surgeon. The chapter will also examine the benefits of high-fidelity simulation in the realm of urology and how it can benefit teamwork and overall quality of care in a procedure-driven specialty. Lastly the chapter focuses on barriers to and potential solutions to further adoption of simulation in urology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Barnes RW, Lang NP, Whiteside MF. Halstedian technique revisited. Innovations in teaching surgical skills. Ann Surg. 2010;1989:118–21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):10–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmed K, Jawad M, Abboudi M, et al. Effectiveness of procedural simulation in urology: a systematic review. J Urol. 2011;186(1):26–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arora S, Lamb B, Undre S, Kneebone R, Darzi A, Sevdalis N. Framework for incorporating simulation into urology training. BJU Int. 2011;107(5):806–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Coberly L, Goldenhar LM. Ready or not, here they come: acting interns’ experience and perceived competency performing basic medical procedures. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(4):491–4.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Promes SB, Chudgar SM, Grochowski CO, et al. Gaps in procedural experience and competency in medical school graduates. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16 Suppl 2:S58–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Meyers MO, Meyer AA, Stewart RD, et al. Teaching technical skills to medical students during a surgery clerkship: results of a small group curriculum. J Surg Res. 2011;166(2):171–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rochelson BL, Baker DA, Mann WJ, Monheit AG, Stone ML. Use of male and female professional patient teams in teaching physical examination of the genitalia. J Reprod Med. 1985;30(11):864–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Norman G, Barrows H, Gliva G, Woodward C. Simulated patients. In: Neufeld V, Norman G, editors. Assessing clinical competence. New York: Springer; 1985. p. 219–29.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Siebeck M, Schwald B, Frey C, Roding S, Stegmann K, Fischer F. Teaching the rectal examination with simulations: effects on knowledge acquisition and inhibition. Med Educ. 2011;45(10):1025–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Low-Beer N, Kinnison T, Baillie S, Bello F, Kneebone R, Higham J. Hidden practice revealed: using task analysis and novel simulator design to evaluate the teaching of digital rectal examination. Am J Surg. 2011;201(1):46–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kacker R, Williams SB. Endourologic procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia: review of indications and outcomes. Urol J. 2011;8(3):171–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hohenfellner R, Stolzenburg JU. Manual endourology. Training for residents. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sweet RM. Review of trainers for transurethral resection of the prostate skills. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):280–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schout BM, Hendrikx AJ, Scherpbier AJ, Bemelmans BL. Update on training models in endourology: a qualitative systematic review of the literature between January 1980 and April 2008. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1247–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wignall GR, Denstedt JD, Preminger GM, et al. Surgical simulation: a urological perspective. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1690–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gomes MP, Barrett AR, Timoney AG, Davies BL. A computer-assisted training/monitoring system for TURP structure and design. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 1999;3(4):242–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ballaro A, Briggs T, Garcia-Montes F, MacDonald D, Emberton M, Mundy AR. A computer generated interactive transurethral prostatic resection simulator. J Urol. 1999;162(5):1633–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kumar PV, Gomes MP, Davies BL, Timoney AG. A computer assisted surgical trainer for transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol. 2002;168(5):2111–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shen Y, Konchada V, Zhang N, et al. Laser surgery simulation platform: toward full-procedure training and rehearsal for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) therapy. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;163:574–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):244–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sweet RM, McDougall EM. Simulation and computer-animated devices: the new minimally invasive skills training paradigm. Urol Clin North Am. 2008;35(3):519–31, x.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sweet R, Kowalewski T, Oppenheimer P, Weghorst S, Satava R. Face, content and construct validity of the University of Washington virtual reality transurethral prostate resection trainer. J Urol. 2004;172(5 Pt 1):1953–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sweet R, Porter J, Oppenheimer P, Hendrickson D, Gupta A, Weghorst S. Simulation of bleeding in endoscopic procedures using virtual reality. J Endourol. 2002;16(7):451–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rashid HH, Kowalewski T, Oppenheimer P, Ooms A, Krieger JN, Sweet RM. The virtual reality transurethral prostatic resection trainer: evaluation of discriminate validity. J Urol. 2007;177(6):2283–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kishore TA, Beddingfield R, Holden T, Shen Y, Reihsen T, Sweet RM. Task deconstruction facilitates acquisition of transurethral resection of prostate skills on a virtual reality trainer. J Endourol. 2009;23(4):665–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hudak SJ, Landt CL, Hernandez J, Soderdahl DW. External validation of a virtual reality transurethral resection of the prostate simulator. J Urol. 2010;184(5):2018–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Oppenheimer P, Gupta A, Weghorst S, Sweet R, Porter J. The representation of blood flow in endourologic surgical simulations. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;81:365–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mishra S, Kurien A, Ganpule A, Veeramani M, Sabnis RB, Desai M. Face and content validity of transurethral resection of prostate on Uro Trainer: is the simulation training useful? J Endourol. 2010;24(11):1839–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schout BM, Bemelmans BL, Martens EJ, Scherpbier AJ, Hendrikx AJ. How useful and realistic is the uro trainer for training transurethral prostate and bladder tumor resection procedures? J Urol. 2009;181(3):1297–303; discussion 1303.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kallstrom R, Hjertberg H, Svanvik J. Impact of virtual reality-­simulated training on urology residents’ performance of transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol. 2010;24(9):1521–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kallstrom R, Hjertberg H, Kjolhede H, Svanvik J. Use of a virtual reality, real-time, simulation model for the training of urologists in transurethral resection of the prostate. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2005;39(4):313–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kallstrom R. Construction, validation and application of a virtual reality simulator for the training of transurethral resection of the prostate. Linkoping University medical dissertations No.11672010.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kallstrom R, Hjertberg H, Svanvik J. Construct validity of a full procedure, virtual reality, real-time, simulation model for training in transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol. 2010;24(1):109–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bach T, Geavlete B, Herrmann TR, Gross AJ. “Homemade” TUR-simulator for less than $40 U.S.? The “Tupper” experience. J Endourol. 2009;23(3):509–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ebbing J, Schostak M, Steiner U, et al. Novel low-cost prostate resection trainer-description and preliminary evaluation. Int J Med Robot. 2011. [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  38. Reich O, Noll M, Gratzke C, et al. High-level virtual reality simulator for endourologic procedures of lower urinary tract. Urology. 2006;67(6):1144–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schout B, Dolmans V, Bemelmans B, Schoot D, Scherpbier A, Hendrikx A. Teaching diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of bladder pathology using a newly developed pig bladder model. J Endourol. 2008;22(11):2547–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Persoon MC, Schout BM, Muijtjens AM, Hendrikx AJ, Witjes JA, Scherpbier AJ. The effect of a low-fidelity model on cystoscopic skill training: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Simul Healthc. 2010;5(4):213–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol. 2007;52(6):1610–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Skolarikos A, Gravas S, Laguna MP, Traxer O, Preminger GM, de la Rosette J. Training in ureteroscopy: a critical appraisal of the literature. BJU Int. 2011;108(6):798–805; discussion 805.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Olweny EO, Pearle MS. Update on resident training models for ureteroscopy. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12(2):115–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Watterson JD, Denstedt JD. Ureteroscopy and cystoscopy simulation in urology. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):263–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schout BM, Muijtjens AM, Hendrikx AJ, et al. Acquisition of flexible cystoscopy skills on a virtual reality simulator by experts and novices. BJU Int. 2010;105(2):234–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schout BM, Ananias HJ, Bemelmans BL, et al. Transfer of cysto-urethroscopy skills from a virtual-reality simulator to the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2010;106(2):226–31; discussion 231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ogan K, Jacomides L, Shulman MJ, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. Virtual ureteroscopy predicts ureteroscopic proficiency of medical students on a cadaver. J Urol. 2004;172(2):667–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nedas T, Challacombe B, Dasgupta P. Virtual reality in urology. BJU Int. 2004;94(3):255–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Michel MS, Knoll T, Kohrmann KU, Alken P. The URO Mentor: development and evaluation of a new computer-based interactive training system for virtual life-like simulation of diagnostic and therapeutic endourological procedures. BJU Int. 2002;89(3):174–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Matsumoto ED, Pace KT, D’A Honey RJ. Virtual reality ureteroscopy simulator as a valid tool for assessing endourological skills. Int J Urol. 2006;13(7):896–901.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Laguna MP, Hatzinger M, Rassweiler J. Simulators and endourological training. Curr Opin Urol. 2002;12(3):209–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gettman MT, Le CQ, Rangel LJ, Slezak JM, Bergstralh EJ, Krambeck AE. Analysis of a computer based simulator as an educational tool for cystoscopy: subjective and objective results. J Urol. 2008;179(1):267–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Chou DS, Abdelshehid C, Clayman RV, McDougall EM. Comparison of results of virtual-reality simulator and training model for basic ureteroscopy training. J Endourol. 2006;20(4):266–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hoznek A, Salomon L, de la Taille A, et al. Simulation training in video-assisted urologic surgery. Curr Urol Rep. 2006;7(2):107–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Knoll T, Trojan L, Haecker A, Alken P, Michel MS. Validation of computer-based training in ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int. 2005;95(9):1276–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Matsumoto ED, Hamstra SJ, Radomski SB, Cusimano MD. A novel approach to endourological training: training at the Surgical Skills Center. J Urol. 2001;166(4):1261–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Matsumoto ED, Hamstra SJ, Radomski SB, Cusimano MD. The effect of bench model fidelity on endourological skills: a randomized controlled study. J Urol. 2002;167(3):1243–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Brehmer M, Tolley D. Validation of a bench model for endoscopic surgery in the upper urinary tract. Eur Urol. 2002;42(2):175–9; discussion 180.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Brehmer M, Swartz R. Training on bench models improves dexterity in ureteroscopy. Eur Urol. 2005;48(3):458–63; discussion 463.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. White MA, Dehaan AP, Stephens DD, Maes AA, Maatman TJ. Validation of a high fidelity adult ureteroscopy and renoscopy simulator. J Urol. 2010;183(2):673–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hammond L, Ketchum J, Schwartz BF. Accreditation council on graduate medical education technical skills competency compliance: urologic surgical skills. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(3):454–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Strohmaier WL, Giese A. Porcine urinary tract as a training model for ureteroscopy. Urol Int. 2001;66(1):30–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Liske P, Ober P, Aguilar Y, Zimmermanns V, Lahme S. Training of upper urinary tract endoscopy – experience with a new model using porcine urinary tract. J Endourol. 2009;23 suppl 1:A224.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Matsumoto ED. Low-fidelity ureteroscopy models. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):248–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1605–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Shapiro A, Lebensart PD, Pode D, Bloom RA. The clinical utility of transrectal ultrasound and digital rectal examination in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 1994;67(799):668–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fuchsjager M, Shukla-Dave A, Akin O, Barentsz J, Hricak H. Prostate cancer imaging. Acta Radiol. 2008;49(1):107–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Chun FK, Epstein JI, Ficarra V, et al. Optimizing performance and interpretation of prostate biopsy: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2010;58(6):851–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Karakiewicz PI, Perrotte P, McCormack M, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer with ultrasound-guided systematic needle biopsy. Can J Urol. 2005;12 Suppl 2:5–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kakehi Y, Naito S. Complication rates of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a nation-wide survey in Japan. Int J Urol. 2008;15(4):319–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Gallina A, Suardi N, Montorsi F, et al. Mortality at 120 days after prostatic biopsy: a population-based study of 22,175 men. Int J Cancer. 2008;123(3):647–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Sclaverano S, Chevreau G, Vadcard L, Mozer P, Troccaz J. BiopSym: a simulator for enhanced learning of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;142:301–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Persoon MC, Schout B, Martens EJ, et al. A simulator for teaching transrectal ultrasound procedures: how useful and realistic is it? Simul Healthc. 2010;5(5):311–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Cos LR. Simulator for transrectal ultrasound of prostate. Urology. 1990;35(5):450–1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Chalasani V, Cool DW, Sherebrin S, Fenster A, Chin J, Izawa JI. Development and validation of a virtual reality transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic biopsy simulator. Can Urol Assoc J. 2011;5(1):19–26.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Janssoone T, Chevreau G, Vadcard L, Mozer P, Troccaz J. Biopsym: a learning environment for trans-rectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;163:242–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Weidenbach M, Drachsler H, Wild F, et al. EchoComTEE – a simulator for transoesophageal echocardiography. Anaesthesia. 2007; 62(4):347–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Terkamp C, Kirchner G, Wedemeyer J, et al. Simulation of abdomen sonography. Evaluation of a new ultrasound simulator. Ultraschall Med. 2003;24(4):239–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Maul H, Scharf A, Baier P, et al. Ultrasound simulators: experience with the SonoTrainer and comparative review of other training systems. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24(5):581–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Ehricke HH. SONOSim3D: a multimedia system for sonography simulation and education with an extensible case database. Eur J Ultrasound. 1998;7(3):225–300.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. d’Aulignac D, Laugier C, Troccaz J, Vieira S. Towards a realistic echographic simulator. Med Image Anal. 2006;10(1):71–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Knudson MM, Sisley AC. Training residents using simulation technology: experience with ultrasound for trauma. J Trauma. 2000;48(4):659–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Autorino R, Haber GP, Stein RJ, et al. Laparoscopic training in urology: critical analysis of current evidence. J Endourol. 2010; 24(9):1377–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Fahlenkamp D, Rassweiler J, Fornara P, Frede T, Loening SA. Complications of laparoscopic procedures in urology: experience with 2,407 procedures at 4 German centers. J Urol. 1999;162(3 Pt 1):765–70; discussion 770–1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Ramachandran A, Kurien A, Patil P, et al. A novel training model for laparoscopic pyeloplasty using chicken crop. J Endourol. 2008;22(4):725–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Katz R, Nadu A, Olsson LE, et al. A simplified 5-step model for training laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. J Urol. 2003;169(6):2041–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. McDougall EM, Kolla SB, Santos RT, et al. Preliminary study of virtual reality and model simulation for learning laparoscopic suturing skills. J Urol. 2009;182(3):1018–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Wijn RP, Persoon MC, Schout BM, Martens EJ, Scherpbier AJ, Hendrikx AJ. Virtual reality laparoscopic nephrectomy simulator is lacking in construct validity. J Endourol. 2010;24(1):117–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Salkini MW, Doarn CR, Kiehl N, Broderick TJ, Donovan JF, Gaitonde K. The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic training using the LapMentor II. J Endourol. 2010;24(1):99–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol. 2009;182(3):1126–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Rogers Jr SO, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, et al. Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery. 2006;140(1):25–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Guzzo TJ, Gonzalgo ML. Robotic surgical training of the urologic oncologist. Urol Oncol. 2009;27(2):214–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Thiel DD, Francis P, Heckman MG, Winfield HN. Prospective evaluation of factors affecting operating time in a residency/fellowship training program incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2008;22(6):1331–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Rashid HH, Leung YY, Rashid MJ, Oleyourryk G, Valvo JR, Eichel L. Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2006;68(1):75–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Lucas SM, Gilley DA, Joshi SS, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP. Robotics training program: evaluation of the satisfaction and the factors that influence success of skills training in a resident robotics curriculum. J Endourol. 2011;25(10):1669–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T, et al. Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int. 2011;107(7):1130–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Lerner MA, Ayalew M, Peine WJ, Sundaram CP. Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? J Endourol. 2010;24(3):467–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Sethi AS, Peine WJ, Mohammadi Y, Sundaram CP. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol. 2009;23(3):503–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Kenny PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ, Libertino JA, Monizadeh A. Face, content, and construct validity of dV-Trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology. 2009;73:1288–92.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;186(3):1019–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Gettman MT, Pereira CW, Lipsky K, et al. Use of high fidelity operating room simulation to assess and teach communication, teamwork and laparoscopic skills: initial experience. J Urol. 2009;181(3):1289–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Gettman MT, Karnes RJ, Arnold JJ, et al. Urology resident training with an unexpected patient death scenario: experiential learning with high fidelity simulation. J Urol. 2008;180(1):283–8; discussion 288.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Undre S, Koutantji M, Sevdalis N, et al. Multidisciplinary crisis simulations: the way forward for training surgical teams. World J Surg. 2007;31(9):1843–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Le CQ, Lightner DJ, VanderLei L, Segura JW, Gettman MT. The current role of medical simulation in American urological residency training programs: an assessment by program directors. J Urol. 2007;177(1):288–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, et al. Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2004;240(3):518–25; discussion 525–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Sweet RM, Beach R, Sainfort F, et al. Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association Basic Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery skills curriculum. J Endourol. 2012;26(2):190–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Marjolein C. Persoon MD

  2. Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Noord-Brabant, The Netherlands

    Marjolein C. Persoon MD

  3. Urology Department, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Noord Holland, The Netherlands

    Barbara M. A. Schout MD, PhD

  4. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St. SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Matthew T. Gettman MD

  5. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic Florida, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    David D. Thiel MD

Authors
  1. Marjolein C. Persoon MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara M. A. Schout MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew T. Gettman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David D. Thiel MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marjolein C. Persoon MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Anesthesiology Otolaryngology, and Structural & Chemical Biology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Adam I. Levine MD

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Samuel DeMaria Jr. MD , Andrew D. Schwartz MD  & Alan J. Sim MD ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Persoon, M.C., Schout, B.M.A., Gettman, M.T., Thiel, D.D. (2013). Simulation in Genitourinary Surgery. In: Levine, A.I., DeMaria, S., Schwartz, A.D., Sim, A.J. (eds) The Comprehensive Textbook of Healthcare Simulation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5993-4_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5993-4_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5992-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5993-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation