Page 47 - Read Online
P. 47

Page 8 of 14             Farinha et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2023;7:38  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2023.50

               Table 3. Construct validation studies
                           Participants enrolled                    Data used
                Authors                                                          Assessor   Scales
                           Novices          Intermediates  Experts  Photos Videos
                Hung et al. [18]  24 (O CC)  9 (< 100 CC)  13 (> 100 CC)  Yes    Two experts  Likert scale
                      [11]
                Chow et al.  6 (PGY 2-3)                6 (PGY 4-5)        Yes   Three experts  GOALS; I/C A; PIA
                Monda et al. [19]  12       6           6                  Yes   5 FTFM     GEARS
                           4 MS + 8 (2nd/3rd) YR  4th and 5th YR  (3 fel. + 3 cons.)
                      [21]
                Ghazi et al.  27                        16                 Yes   2 FTAS     GEARS
                           (22 res. + 5 fel.;           (cons;                   (> 200 RAPN)
                           < 30 TRC)                    > 150 UTRC)
                Ohtake et al. [33]  8 (< 20 LP)         8 (> 20 LP)        Yes              GEARS/CROMS
                      [29]
                Hung et al.  15 (no ST)     13 (< 100 CC)  14 (> 100 CC)   Yes   One expert  GOALS/TPT
                           92               28          63                 Yes

               CC: Console cases; cons.: consultant; CROMS: clinically relevant outcome measures; fel.: fellows; FTAS: fellowship trained attending surgeons;
               FTFM: fellowship trained faculty members; GEARS: global evaluative assessment of robotic skills; GOALS: global operative assessment of
               operative skills; I/C A: instrument/camera awareness; LP: laparoscopic procedure; MS: medical students; PGY: post graduate year; PIA: precision
               of instrument action; RAPN: robot-assisted partial nephrectomy; res.: residents; ST: surgical training; TPT: total procedure time; UTRC: upper tract
               robotic cases; YR: year resident.

               using TMs can be transferred to the performance level required for safe surgical practice , especially if
                                                                                             [8]
                                                               [10]
               surgeons are enrolled in a PBP training program for PN , although this recommendation is contingent on
               a high level of evidence .
                                   [10]
               As a reference procedure that urologists need to learn with a difficult learning curve and potentially life-
               threatening complications, the acquisition of skills for the performance of a safe PN should start in the skills
               laboratory. This review aimed to evaluate the type and level of validation evidence for the efficacy of existing
               PN TMs in acquiring and transferring surgical skills to the performance level required for safe surgical
               performance. No RCTs were found among the reviewed studies. Fourteen cohort studies on PN TMs based
               on animal tissue, 3D printing, and VR/AR technology were identified. Using the classification developed by
               the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, the level of evidence assessed was low .
                                                                                        [30]

               Training models
               Animal TMs closely emulate human tissues, allowing trainees to understand anatomical structures, natural
               tissue consistency, and movement during dissection and suturing. These are critical features for training in
               tumor excision and renorrhaphy. The reviewed studies used different substances to create pseudo-tumors of
               a consistent size. Although no cost-effective studies have been conducted, these models were found to be
               economical and widely available.

               Several potential advantages were identified with 3D printed TMs. They were derived from the patient’s CT
               or MRI images and were, therefore, patient-specific. Furthermore, they provide the potential benefits of
               preoperative rehearsal. The technology used to print the mold produced durable, reliable, and repeatable
               models, and the created phantoms accurately represented the patient’s anatomy and diverse tumor
               geometries.


               Different substances were used to fill the mold to produce the final model. Silicone represented the kidney
               tissue in terms of tear strength, but PVA-C was the most frequently used [17,23,25,26] . The latter closely
               resembled real tissue, allowing the addition of enhancing agents (gadolinium and barium), providing
               effective imaging by CT or MRI, which could be recycled.
   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52