Castiglioni-del RE, Gaete-Dañobeitía MI, Grunauer-Paladines M, Varas-Cohen J, Astroza-Eulufi G

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 92-97
PDF size: 437.71 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and pyeloplasty have prolonged learning curves and limited exposure during training. Simulation-based training may shorten this curve and improve safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and educational impact of a 10-session laparoscopic simulation program for both procedures. Material and methods: quasi-experimental pilot study in a simulation centre. Ten urologists completed 10 sessions per procedure using ex-vivo tissue laparoscopic models. Total operative time was recorded for each attempt; OSATS global score (five items, 25 points) was measured before and after the programme, and anastomotic leakage and impaired patency were recorded as critical errors. Linear mixed models were used for time, Wilcoxon signed-rank test for OSATS, and logistic mixed-effects models for errors. Results: median operative time decreased from 25.5 to 12.0 minutes for partial nephrectomy and from 34.5 to 20.0 minutes for pyeloplasty. Median OSATS increased from 15 to 25 points (p < 0.001). Leakage was frequent in early sessions and decreased markedly over the programme, while patency remained high and stable. Conclusions: a structured 10-session laparoscopic simulation programme in partial nephrectomy and pyeloplasty is feasible and is associated with improvements in efficiency, technical performance and reduction of critical errors, supporting its integration into urological training curricula.

REFERENCES

1. Singh AG. Simulation-based training in laparoscopic urology: pros and cons. Indian J Urol. 2018; 34 (4): 245-253.

2. Kozan AA, Chan LH, Biyani CS. Current status of simulation training in urology: a non-systematic review. Res Rep Urol. 2020; 12: 111-128.

3. Lima J, Rocha H, Mesquita F, Araújo D, Silveira R, Borges G. Simulated training model of ureteropyelic anastomosis in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Acta Cir Bras. 2020; 35 (11): e351108.

4. Cabarcas Maciá L, Marmolejo Franco F, Siu Uribe A, Palomares Garzón C, Rojo Díez R. Pilot study for low-cost model validation in laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty simulation. Cir Pediatr. 2022; 35 (3): 141-145.

5. Correa-Restrepo J, Romero-Espitía W, Chams-Anturi A, Mejía-Bueno AM. Development and validation of a laparoscopy simulation model of pyeloplasty for pediatric patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2023; 33 (1): 101-109.

6. Ahmed K, Jawad M, Abboudi M, Gavazzi A, Darzi A, Athanasiou T, et al. Effectiveness of procedural simulation in urology: a systematic review. J Urol. 2011; 186 (1): 26-34.

7. Bouchalakis A, Paspalaki E, Ortner G, Somani BK, Mamoulakis C, Biyani CS, et al. Simulation-based training in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Cent Eur J Urol. 2025; 78 (2): 116-124.

8. Varas J, Mejía R, Riquelme A, Maluenda F, Buckel E, Salinas J, et al. Significant transfer of surgical skills obtained with an advanced laparoscopic training program to a laparoscopic jejunojejunostomy in a live porcine model: feasibility of learning advanced laparoscopy in a general surgery residency. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26 (12): 3486-3494.

9. Boza C, León F, Buckel E, Riquelme A, Crovari F, Martínez J, et al. Simulation-trained junior residents perform better than general surgeons on advanced laparoscopic cases. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31 (1): 135-141.

10. McGaghie WC. Medical education research as translational science. Sci Transl Med. 2010; 2(19): 19cm8.

11. Brian R, Davis G, Park KM, Alseidi A. Evolution of laparoscopic education and the laparoscopic learning curve: a review of the literature. Laparosc Surg. 2022; 6: 34.

12. 12. Shah S, Aydin A, Fisher R, Ahmed K, Froghi S, Dasgupta P. Current status of simulation-based training tools in general surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg Open. 2022; 38: 100427.