ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Endoscopic surgical simulation using low-fidelity and virtual reality transurethral resection simulators in urology simulation boot camp course: trainees feedback assessment study.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Application and utilization of virtual and augmented reality in surgical specialties-an expert Delphi consensus].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Face and content validation of laser enucleation of prostate simulation model: an EAU European School of Urology (ESU) Lower Urinary Tract Endoscopy Working Group study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Face and content validation of TURP and TURB simulation models: an EAU European School of Urology (ESU) Lower Urinary Tract Endoscopy Working Group Study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Current utility of artificial intelligence in benign prostate surgery: a review of literature on behalf of the EAU section of endourology.World journal of urology · 2025Review
- Endoscopic simulators in benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical training: a scoping review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Review
- Educating the Educator: Understanding Essential Components of Contemporary Urology Residency Training.Current urology reports · 2025Review
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection training: evaluation of an ex vivo training model with continuous perfusion (ETM-CP) for hands-on teaching and training in China.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- The use of a surgical boot camp combining anatomical education and surgical simulation for internship preparedness among senior medical students.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Surgical skills and COVID-19 pandemic: Impact and way forward.Scottish medical journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of our study was to study trainees' feedback and rating of models for training transurethral resection of bladder lesions (TURBT) and prostate (TURP) during simulation.
methodsThe study was performed during the ''Transurethral resection (TUR) module" at the boot camp held in 2019. Prior to the course, all trainees were required to evaluate their experience in performing TURBT and TURP procedures. Trainees simulated resection on two different models; low-fidelity tissue model (Samed, GmBH, Dresden, Germany) and virtual reality simulator (TURPMentor, 3D Systems, Littleton, US). Following the completion of the module, trainees completed a questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate their assessment of the models for surgical training.
resultsIn total, 174 simulation assessments were performed by 56 trainees (Samed Bladder-40, Prostate-45, TURPMentor Bladder-51, Prostate-37). All trainees reported that they had performed < 50 TUR procedures. The Samed model median scores were for appearance (4/5), texture (5/5), feel (5/5) and conductibility (5/5). The TURPMentor median score was for appearance (4/5), texture and feel (4/5) and conductibility (4/5). The most common criticism of the Samed model was that it failed to mimic bleeding. In contrast, trainees felt that the TURPMentor haptic feedback was inadequate to allow for close resection and did not calibrate movements accurately.
conclusionsOur results demonstrate that both forms of simulators (low-fidelity and virtual reality) were rated highly by urology trainees and improve their confidence in performing transurethral resection and in fact complement each other in providing lower tract endoscopic resection simulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.