ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate skills progression at the Urology Simulation Boot Camp (USBC), a course intended to provide urology trainees with 32 hours of 1:1 training on low and high-fidelity simulators. DESIGN: In this single-group cohort study, trainees rotated through modules based on aspects of the United Kingdom urology residency curriculum and undertook a pre and postcourse MCQ. Specific procedural skill was evaluated by an expert and graded as either: "A"-Good (≥4 on a 5-point Likert Scale) or "B"-Poor (Likert scale of 1-3). Competence progression was calculated as the change in score between baseline and final assessments. SETTING: The USBC was held at St James' University Hospital, Leeds, U.K. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 34 trainees attended the second USBC, 33 trainees participated in all the pre and postcourse assessments. The mean duration of urology training prior to undertaking the USBC was 15 months. RESULTS: Competence progression was assessed in 33 urology trainees. Mean MCQ scores improved by 16.7% (p < 0.001) between pre and postcourse assessment. At final assessment, 87.9% of trainees scored "A" in instrument knowledge and assembly compared to 44.4% at baseline (p < 0.001). There was a mean improvement of 439s (p < 0.001) in the time taken to complete the European-Basic Laparoscopic skills assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The USBC has shown to aid trainees in competence progression during the simulation on a variety of urological skills; however, retention of skill in the long-term was undetermined. The use of our grading system is simple to understand and may be used in other simulation courses to guide participants with their future training needs.
Subject(s)
Clinical Competence , Educational Measurement , Simulation Training , Urology/education , Cohort Studies , Curriculum , Female , Humans , Male , United KingdomABSTRACT
We systematically reviewed the world literature and compare oncological outcomes, morbidity, renal function, and perioperative outcome between cryotherapy and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for suspected renal malignancy. There was a statistically significant difference in "recurrence rates" between the 2 techniques, favoring the RAPN cohort. There was no statistically significant difference in overall and ≥Clavien 3a complication rates between the 2 techniques. The quality of evidence for recurrence rates, overall complication, and ≥Clavien 3a were "moderate", "low," and "very low," respectively, on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. If a nephron sparing approach is indicated, RAPN should be the approach of choice.
