Search

The increasing challenges facing the training of future neurosurgeons have led to continued development of simulation-based training, particularly for neurosurgical subspecialties. The simulators must be scientifically validated to fully assess their benefit and determine their educational effects. In this second part, we aim to identify the available simulators for spine, pediatric neurosurgery, interventional neuroradiology, and nontechnical skills, assess their validity, and determine their effectiveness. Both Medline and Embase were searched for English language articles that validate simulation models for neurosurgery. Each study was screened according to the Messick validity framework, and rated in each domain. The McGaghie model of translational outcomes was then used to determine a level of effectiveness for each simulator or training course. Overall, 114 articles for 108 simulation-based training models or courses were identified. These articles included 24 for spine simulators, 3 for nontechnical skills, 10 for 9 pediatric neurosurgery simulators, and 12 for 11 interventional neuroradiology simulators. Achieving the highest rating for each validity domain were 3 models for content validity; 16 for response processes; 1 for internal structure; 2 for relations to other variables; and only 1 for consequences. For translational outcomes, 2 training courses achieved a level of effectiveness of >2, showing skills transfer beyond the simulator environment. With increasing simulators, there is a need for more validity studies and attempts to investigate translational outcomes to the operating theater when using these simulators. Nontechnical skills training is notably lacking, despite demand within the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent emphasis on simulation-based training in neurosurgery has led to the development of many simulation models and training courses. We aim to identify the currently available simulators and training courses for neurosurgery, assess their validity, and determine their effectiveness. Both MEDLINE and Embase were searched for English language articles which validate simulation models for neurosurgery. Each study was screened according to the Messick validity framework and rated in each domain. The McGaghie model of translational outcomes was then used to determine a level of effectiveness (LoE) for each simulator or training course. On screening of 6006 articles, 114 were identified to either validate or determine an LoE for 108 simulation-based training models or courses. Achieving the highest rating for each validity domain were 6 models and training courses for content validity, 12 for response processes, 4 for internal structure, 14 for relations to other variables, and none for consequences. For translational outcomes, 6 simulators or training achieved an LoE >2 and thus showed skills transfer beyond the simulation setting. With the advent of increasing neurosurgery simulators and training tools, there is a need for more validity studies. Further attempts to investigate translational outcomes to the operating theater when using these simulators is particularly warranted. More training tools incorporating full-immersion simulation and nontechnical skills training are recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To validate the Advanced Scope Trainer (AST; Mediskills, Northampton, UK). The AST is a currently unvalidated simulator, developed for flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) training. This study aims to assess the face, content, construct, and concurrent validity to assess the level of transferability of skills to the operating room.Materials and Methods: This prospective, observational, and comparative study recruited novices (n = 19) and trainees (n = 34), with participants performing a diagnostic fURS, followed by removal of a lower pole stone, on the AST. Fifteen participants performed a fURS on fresh frozen cadavers to assess concurrent validity. Trainees were supervised by expert urologists (n = 7) during each procedure. Performance was evaluated using the validated Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) assessment. Face and content validity were demonstrated by anonymous surveys from participants and faculty.Results: Face validity assessment revealed that trainees found the simulator was 76% realistic (3.8/5 on a Likert scale). Laser stone fragmentation (4.11 ± 0.85) and manual stone extraction (4.03 ± 0.85) were thought to be the most realistic components and guidewire insertion (3.14 ± 1.35) the least. Participants also believed the simulator to be useful, giving transferrable skills to take into the operating room, demonstrating content validity. Using an OSATS assessment, concurrent validity was demonstrated in "respect for tissue" (P = .0105) and "time and motion" (P = .0196). Construct validity was also demonstrated when comparing novices to trainees (mean OSATS 10.11 ± 2.28 vs 23.89 ± 5.38).Conclusion: This study has demonstrated face, content, construct, and concurrent validity of the AST for fURS training. Further evaluation is necessary to demonstrate construct and predictive validity of skills gained using the model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Over the past few decades, simulation-based training has rapidly been adopted by many centres for effective technical and non-technical skills training, as a supplementary method to traditional operating room experience. The aim of this study is to assess the current practice in training and seek opinion regarding the future role of simulation in urological training.Methods: A cross sectional survey was designed and distributed amongst expert and trainee urological surgeons. The survey consisted of twenty-two questions that were split into three sections; Introduction (6), Technical Skills training in urology (10) and Non-technical skills training in urology (6).Results: A total of 91 residents and 172 specialists completed the survey. In both groups, there was an agreed consensus that laparoscopic training and exposure was insufficient as only 21% of trainees and 23% of specialists believed that they had sufficient training in this area. Furthermore, both groups lacked simulation-based training in common urological procedures including nephrectomy (62%), cystoscopy (69-74%), ureteroscopy (47-59%), transurethral resection of the prostate (56-65%) and percutaneous renal surgery (76-73%). 90% of trainees and 70% of specialists believed (agreed and strongly agreed) that there is a role for non-technical skills simulation in urological training.Conclusions: Simulation training has been under-used thus far and trainees face an uphill challenge to enhance their skills and technical abilities in the operating room. Simulation is recommended by both trainees and specialists and may represent one of the solutions to the challenges of safe and effective urology procedural training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the face, content, and construct validity of a novel virtual reality simulator for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and to assess its feasibility and acceptability as a training model.Methods: This prospective observational study recruited 53 participants, comprising of 3 groups: HoLEP experts (n = 11), intermediates (n = 24), and novices (n = 18). All participants received an educational package and a 15-minute familiarization exercise with the simulator. All participants then carried out a full enucleation on an identical 60 cm(3) virtual prostate. Performance was assessed using in-built simulator metrics, and a questionnaire was distributed assessing face and content validity, as well as feasibility, and acceptability. Novice, intermediate, and expert groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.Results: Construct validity data revealed significant differences in enucleation efficiency (grams enucleated per hour) when comparing experts to intermediates (P = .003), experts to novices (P <.001), and intermediates to novices (P = .001). Face validity was rated by experts as acceptable, with a mean score of 5.6 out of 10 when asked to rate the overall realism. Content validity questions showed that 85% of participants agreed that simulator-based assessment is essential for patient safety and 87% agreed that there was a role for a validated virtual reality simulator for use in HoLEP training.Conclusion: This study established face, content, and construct validity for this novel virtual reality HoLEP simulator. The majority of participants also thought that it is a feasible and acceptable model for HoLEP training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]