Creation and validation of a novel low-cost dry lab for early resident training and assessment of robotic prostatectomy technical proficiency

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Current Urology Pub Date : 2023-03-20 DOI:10.1097/cu9.0000000000000192
Kevin Kunitsky, Abhishek Venkataramana, Katherine E. Fero, Jorge Ballon, Jacob Komberg, Robert Reiter, Wayne Brisbane
{"title":"Creation and validation of a novel low-cost dry lab for early resident training and assessment of robotic prostatectomy technical proficiency","authors":"Kevin Kunitsky, Abhishek Venkataramana, Katherine E. Fero, Jorge Ballon, Jacob Komberg, Robert Reiter, Wayne Brisbane","doi":"10.1097/cu9.0000000000000192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose To evaluate the preliminary validity and acceptability of a low-cost low-fidelity robotic surgery dry lab for training and assessing residents’ technical proficiency with key robotic radical prostatectomy steps. Materials and methods Three standardized inanimate tasks were created to simulate the radical prostatectomy steps of posterior dissection, neurovascular bundle release, and urethrovesical anastomosis. Urology trainees and faculty at a single institution completed and evaluated each dry lab task. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing task completion times and Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills scores across four participant cohorts: medical students (n = 5), junior residents (n = 5), senior residents (n = 5), and attending surgeons (n = 7). Content validity, face validity, and acceptability were evaluated through a posttask survey using a 5-point Likert scale. Results There was a significant difference in the individual and composite task completion times and Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills scores across all participant cohorts (all p < 0.01). The model was rated favorably in terms of its content validity and acceptability for use in residency training. However, model realism, compared with human tissue, was poorly rated. The dry lab production cost was less than US $25. Conclusions This low-cost procedure-specific dry lab demonstrated evidence of content validity, construct validity, and acceptability for simulating key robotic prostatectomy technical steps and can be used to augment robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy surgical training.","PeriodicalId":39147,"journal":{"name":"Current Urology","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/cu9.0000000000000192","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the preliminary validity and acceptability of a low-cost low-fidelity robotic surgery dry lab for training and assessing residents’ technical proficiency with key robotic radical prostatectomy steps. Materials and methods Three standardized inanimate tasks were created to simulate the radical prostatectomy steps of posterior dissection, neurovascular bundle release, and urethrovesical anastomosis. Urology trainees and faculty at a single institution completed and evaluated each dry lab task. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing task completion times and Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills scores across four participant cohorts: medical students (n = 5), junior residents (n = 5), senior residents (n = 5), and attending surgeons (n = 7). Content validity, face validity, and acceptability were evaluated through a posttask survey using a 5-point Likert scale. Results There was a significant difference in the individual and composite task completion times and Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills scores across all participant cohorts (all p < 0.01). The model was rated favorably in terms of its content validity and acceptability for use in residency training. However, model realism, compared with human tissue, was poorly rated. The dry lab production cost was less than US $25. Conclusions This low-cost procedure-specific dry lab demonstrated evidence of content validity, construct validity, and acceptability for simulating key robotic prostatectomy technical steps and can be used to augment robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy surgical training.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创建和验证一个新的低成本干实验室,用于早期住院医师培训和评估机器人前列腺切除术技术熟练程度
目的评估低成本低保真机器人手术干实验室用于培训和评估住院医师对机器人根治性前列腺切除术关键步骤的技术熟练程度的初步有效性和可接受性。材料与方法建立标准化的无生命任务,模拟前列腺根治术的步骤:后路剥离、神经血管束释放和尿道膀胱吻合。泌尿外科受训者和教师在一个单一的机构完成和评估每个干实验室任务。通过比较四个参与者队列(医学生(n = 5)、初级住院医师(n = 5)、老年住院医师(n = 5)和主治外科医生(n = 7)的任务完成时间和机器人技能全球评估评估得分来评估结构效度。通过使用5点李克特量表的任务后调查来评估内容效度、面部效度和可接受性。结果受试者在个体任务完成时间和综合任务完成时间以及机器人技能综合评估得分上存在显著差异(均p < 0.01)。该模型在其内容效度和可接受性方面被评为良好的住院医师培训使用。然而,与人体组织相比,模型的真实性评分很低。干式实验室生产成本低于25美元。结论该低成本的手术特异性干实验室在模拟机器人前列腺切除术关键技术步骤方面具有内容效度、结构效度和可接受性,可用于加强机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺切除术手术培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Urology
Current Urology Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
期刊最新文献
Bilateral nephrolithiasis and upper tract transitional cell carcinoma in horseshoe kidney. Visual guidelines and tutoring in pediatric urological surgery. Hypoxia activates the hypoxia-inducible factor-1α/vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in a prostatic stromal cell line: A mechanism for the pathogenesis of benign prostatic hyperplasia Comparison of midurethral tape with autologous rectus fascial sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis Partial versus radical nephrectomy for T1b renal cell carcinoma: A comparison of efficacy and prognostic factors based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1