» Articles » PMID: 14512654

Cadaveric Versus Porcine Models in Urological Laparoscopic Training

Overview
Journal Urol Int
Publisher Karger
Specialty Urology
Date 2003 Sep 27
PMID 14512654
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Laparoscopy performed on anesthetized pigs is an established training model. In this pilot study, we performed laparoscopy on cadavers as a training modality for urologists participating in a laparoscopic seminar.

Materials And Methods: We compared data from two consecutive laparoscopy seminars performed at our institution. The first included a laparoscopy session performed on pigs. The second was in the same setup, yet laparoscopy was performed on fresh cadavers. We analyzed and compared the trainees' perspectives regarding the 2 modalities using a 5-scale satisfaction questionnaire.

Results: Seven trainees attended the cadaveric and 9 the porcine laparoscopy session. The two groups were similar in terms of age and previous laparoscopic and urological experience. The general satisfaction of the two training modalities was high in the two groups, as well as their will for another session of the same kind. Yet the trainees ranked their understanding of the surgical anatomy, laparoscopic technique and use of instruments significantly higher in the cadaveric laparoscopy group (p values were 0.007, 0.006 and 0.032, respectively).

Conclusions: Cadaveric laparoscopy may offer an ideal surgical environment allowing dissection and performance of complete procedures. In this pilot study, we conducted the first reported cadaveric laparoscopy training seminar in urology. The trainees preferred the cadaveric laparoscopy and found it superior to porcine laparoscopy. We believe that cadaveric laparoscopy is an important training tool, which may be added to the armamentarium of urological laparoscopy training courses.

Citing Articles

Development of a laparoscopic sigmoidectomy simulator: Sigmaster.

Shigaki T, Hasegawa H, Teramura K, Takeshita N, Ikeda K, Tsukada Y Surg Today. 2024; 54(10):1272-1276.

PMID: 38740574 DOI: 10.1007/s00595-024-02855-5.


From cadaveric and animal studies to the clinical reality of robotic mastectomy: a feasibility report of training program.

Lee J, Park H, Lee D, Song S, Yu J, Ryu J Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):21032.

PMID: 34702866 PMC: 8548531. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00278-7.


A review of simulation training and new 3D computer-generated synthetic organs for robotic surgery education.

Costello D, Huntington I, Burke G, Farrugia B, OConnor A, Costello A J Robot Surg. 2021; 16(4):749-763.

PMID: 34480323 PMC: 8415702. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01302-8.


Didactic Benefits of Surgery on Body Donors during Live Surgery Events in Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Ackermann J, Wedel T, Holthaus B, Bojahr B, Hackethal A, Brucker S J Clin Med. 2020; 9(9).

PMID: 32917056 PMC: 7563950. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9092912.


An evaluation of live porcine simulation training for robotic surgery.

Raison N, Poulsen J, Abe T, Aydin A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P J Robot Surg. 2020; 15(3):429-434.

PMID: 32654091 PMC: 8134281. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01113-3.