ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current usage of simulation in urological education in the USA and the barriers to incorporating a simulation-based educational curriculum, as the shift towards competency-based medical education has necessitated the introduction of simulation for training and assessing both non-technical and technical skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Residency programme directors at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited urology training programmes in the USA were invited to respond to an anonymous electronic survey. The study evaluated the programme directors' experiences and opinions for the current usage of existing urology simulators. The survey also elicited receptiveness and the barriers for incorporating simulation-based training curricula within urology training programmes. RESULTS: In all, 43 completed surveys were received (35% response rate). Amongst responders, 97% (42/43) reported having access to a simulation education centre, and 60% (25/42) have incorporated simulation into their curriculum. A total of 87% (37/43) agreed that there is a role for a standardised simulator training curriculum, and 75% (30/40) agreed that simulators would improve operating room performance. A total of 64% (27/42) agreed that cost was a limiting factor, 12% (5/42) agreed on the cost-effectiveness of simulators, 35% (17/41) agreed there was an increased need for simulator education within work-hour limitations, and 38% (16/42) agreed a simulation programme would reduce patient risks and complications. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of urology programme directors consider that there is a role for incorporating a simulation-based curriculum into urology training. Barriers to implementation include cost burden, need for constant technology updates, need for advanced planning, and willingness of faculty to participate in administration.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Although penile cancer represents only 1% of all male cancers, the traditional treatment, total or subtotal penectomy, carries devastating psychological and functional outcomes. Organ sparing surgery is an attractive option if it can provide satisfactory cancer control equivalent to or nearly equivalent to standard techniques. This approach is meeting increasing acceptance. We offer a timely comprehensive review to increase awareness of these procedures and their applicability, to evaluate the techniques objectively and to provide guidance to the practicing urologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed® search was conducted using the key words "organ sparing/conserving" in "penile cancer" alone or in combination with "partial penectomy," "glansectomy," "glans resurfacing," "penile reconstruction," "laser," "Mohs," "outcomes" and "quality of life." RESULTS: Many techniques of organ sparing surgery in patients with penile cancer have been described through the years. To be practical and useful, a requirement of all these procedures is achievement of complete tumor excision confirmed by negative intraoperative frozen section and final pathological margins. Although organ sparing surgery carries a greater risk of local recurrence than penile amputation, overall patient survival is generally unaffected. Following strict indications and appropriate patient selection cancer specific survival after organ sparing surgery is equivalent to that of established techniques with the added benefits of improved quality of life and more acceptable morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: In properly selected patients with penile cancer organ sparing surgery provides comparable oncologic outcomes to conventional techniques, including total and subtotal amputations. Many patients are able to urinate while standing and a significant number are able to have intercourse.
