Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the “Teaching Guide for Basic Laparoscopic Skills” as a stand-alone educational tool for hands-on training sessions: a pilot study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and objectives

Standardization of hands-on training (HoT) has profoundly impacted the educational field in the last decade. To provide quality training sessions on a global scale, the European School of Urology Training group developed a teaching guide for tutors in 2015. Our study aims to understand whether this guide alone can provide information enough to match the performance improvement guaranteed by an expert tutor.

Material and methods

4 randomized groups of participants underwent HoT sessions with different teaching modalities: an expert surgeon (group 1), an expert E-BLUS tutor (group 2), E-BLUS guide alone (group 3), no tutor (group 4). Groups 1 and 2 were respectively provided with two different tutors to avoid biases related to personal tutor ability. Along the training session, each participant could perform five trials on two E-BLUS tasks: Peg transfer and Knot tying. During trials 1 and 5, completion time and number of errors were recorded for analysis with Pi-score algorithm. The average per-group Pi-scores were then compared to measure different performance improvement results.

Results

60 participants from Italy were enrolled and randomized into four groups of 15. Pi-scores recorded on Peg transfer task were 24,6 (group 1), 26,4 (group 2), 42,2 (group 3), 11,7 (group 4). Pi-scores recorded on Knot tying task were 33,2 (group 1), 31,3 (group 2), 37,5 (group 3), 18,6 (group 4).

Conclusion

Compared to a human tutor, standardized teaching with the EBLUS guide may produce similar performance improvement. This evidence opens doors to automated teaching and to several novelties in hands-on training.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ESU:

European School of Urology

ESUT:

European Section of Uro-Technology

HoT:

Hands on training

E-BLUS:

European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills

FLS:

Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery

TGBLS:

Teaching Guide for Basic Laparoscopic Skills

EUREP:

European Urology Residents Education Programme

References

  1. Matsumoto ED, Hamstra SJ, Radomski SB, Cusimano MD (2001) A novel approach to endourological training: training at the surgical skills center. J Urol 166(4):1261–1266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rivas JG et al (2018) The role of social networks in urological academic training. Proper use. Arch Esp Urol 71(1):150–157

    Google Scholar 

  3. Veneziano D, Poniatowski LH, Reihsen TE, Sweet RM (2016) Preliminary evaluation of the SimPORTAL major vessel injury (MVI) repair model. Surg Endosc 30(4):1405–1412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Veneziano D, Hananel D (2019) The Smith’s textbook of endourology, Chapter 75, 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  5. Veneziano D et al (2016) Construct, content and face validity of the camera handling trainer (CHT): a new E-BLUS training task for 30° laparoscope navigation skills. World J Urol 34(4):479–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Veneziano D et al (2017) Development methodology of the novel endoscopic stone treatment step 1 training/assessment curriculum: an international collaborative work by European Association of Urology Sections. J Endourol 31(9):934–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Somani BK et al (2018) The European Urology Residents Education Programme hands-on training format: 4 years of hands-on training improvements from the European School of Urology. 5(6):1152–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brinkman WM et al (2014) Results of the European Basic Laparoscopic Urological skills examination. Eur Urol 65(2):490–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Peters JH et al (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135(1):21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Create a blocked randomisation list. Sealed Envelope Ltd., 2019. https://www.sealedenvelope.com/simple-randomiser/v1/lists. Accessed 16 Dec 2019

  11. Veneziano D et al (2019) Performance improvement (Pi) score: an algorithm to score Pi objectively during E-BLUS hands-on training sessions: a European Association of Urology, Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) project. BJU Int 123(4):726–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Veneziano D, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Gozen A (2019) EBLUS explanation videos. https://uroweb.org/education/online-education/surgical-education/laparoscopy/. Accessed 10 Aug 2019

  13. Carrion D et al (2019) Current status of urology surgical training in Europe: an ESRU-ESU-ESUT collaborative study. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02763-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Beard J, Robinson J, Smout J (2002) Problem-based learning for surgical trainees. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 84:227–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Norman GR, Schmidt HG (1992) The psychological basis of problem-based learning: a review of the evidence. Acad Med 67:557–565

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Beech D, Domer F (2002) Utility of the case-method approach for the integration of clinical and basic science in surgical education. J Cancer Educ 17:161–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Somani BK et al (2019) Outcomes of European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills (EBLUS) examinations: results from European School of Urology (ESU) and EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) over 6 years (2013–2018). Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.01.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Furriel FTG, Laguna MP, Figueiredo AJC, Nunes PTC, Rassweiler JJ (2013) Training of European urology residents in laparoscopy: results of a pan-European survey. BJU Int 112(8):1223–1228. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cocci A et al (2016) Urology residency training in Italy: results of the first national survey. Eur Urol Focus 4:2–9

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gravante G, Venditti D (2013) A systematic review on low-cost boxmodels to achieve basic and advanced laparoscopic skills during modern surgical training. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Griffin S, Kumar A, Burgess N, Donaldson P (2006) Development oflaparoscopic suturing skills: a prospective trial. J Endourol 20:144–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gupta R, Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Vallencien G (2003) Invitro training program to improve ambidextrous skill and reduce physicalfatigue during laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. J Endourol 17:323–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scerbo MW, Britt RC, Stefanidis D (2017) Differences in mental workload between traditional and single-incision laparoscopic procedures measured with a secondary task. Am J Surg 213(2):244–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the tutors who contributed to the development of the Teaching guide: Sas Barmoshe, Shekhar Biyani, Oscar Rodriguez Faba, Giles Hellawell, Hans Langenhuijsen, Peter Macek, Deirdre Overgaauw, Giovannalberto Pini, Rafael Sancez Salas, Marek Schmidt, Giampaolo Siena, Andreas Skolarikos, Christian Wagner

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Kidney Transplant, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano, Reggio Calabria, Italy

    Domenico Veneziano, Tommaso Castelli & Daniele Urzì

  2. School of Medicine, Hofstra Northwell University, New York, USA

    Domenico Veneziano

  3. Department of Urology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Giuseppe Morgia, Sebastiano Cimino, Giorgio Russo & Salvatore Privitera

  4. Department of Urology, SLK Klinik, Heilbronn, Germany

    Ali Goezen

  5. Department of Urology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Ben Van Cleynenbreugel

  6. Department of Urology, King’s College Hospital, London, UK

    Kamran Ahmed

  7. Department of Urology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Bhaskar Somani

Authors
  1. Domenico Veneziano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giuseppe Morgia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tommaso Castelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sebastiano Cimino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giorgio Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Salvatore Privitera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ali Goezen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ben Van Cleynenbreugel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kamran Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Bhaskar Somani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Daniele Urzì
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

ESU-ESUT training Research group

Contributions

DV: protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing. GM: manuscript editing. TC: data analysis. SC: data collection or management. GR: data collection or management. SP: data collection or management. AG: manuscript editing. BVC: manuscript editing. KA: manuscript editing. BS: manuscript editing. DU: manuscript writing, data collection or management.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Domenico Veneziano.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors involved have no potential conflict of interest to disclose.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

The actual research did not require any experiment on humans or animals.

Informed consent

No informed consent was needed for the data collected.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veneziano, D., Morgia, G., Castelli, T. et al. Evaluation of the “Teaching Guide for Basic Laparoscopic Skills” as a stand-alone educational tool for hands-on training sessions: a pilot study. World J Urol 39, 281–287 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03161-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03161-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation