Palaneer Sharanya, Aydin Abdullatif, Janabi Hasaneen Al, Al-Jabir Ahmed, Macchione Nicola, Khan Muhammad Shamim, Dasgupta Prokar, Ahmed Kamran
MRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, UK.
MRC Centre for Transplantation, 5th Floor Southwark Wing, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Ther Adv Urol. 2019 Sep 22;11:1756287219875584. doi: 10.1177/1756287219875584. eCollection 2019 Jan-Dec.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of evidence of the Endo-Uro Trainer (SAMED, Dresden, Germany) for semi-rigid ureteroscopy.
Novice ( = 29), intermediate-level ( = 25), and expert ( = 24) urological surgeons were recruited to participate in the study. Novices were allocated randomly to Groups A and B, where A performed two set procedures using the already validated Uro-Scopic Trainer (Limbs and Things, Bristol, UK), and Group B used the Endo-Uro trainer. Subsequently they were crossed over to perform the same two procedures using the other model. Intermediate and expert groups performed the same procedure on the Endo-Uro trainer only. Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and the procedural times were collected and analyzed. All participants were invited to complete a final evaluation survey.
The evaluation survey revealed a realism rating in all aspects, with a mean Likert rating of 4.04/5. Significant differences were observed in performance time between novices and experts ( = 0.0014), and between intermediates and experts ( = 0.0113). OSATS scores differed significantly between all groups ( < 0.0001). Group B novices showed statistically significant improvement in performance time ( = 0.0012) and OSATS scores ( = 0.0439) after the crossover. Significant differences in performance time ( = 0.0025) between groups A and B were also observed post-crossover.
This study demonstrated content validity for the Endo-Uro Trainer model. In addition, the model was shown to be capable of differentiating levels of experience, which contributes to the acceptance of the validity hypothesis. Improvement in performance using the model demonstrates its effectiveness for training.
本研究旨在评估Endo-Uro训练器（德国德累斯顿的SAMED公司）用于半硬性输尿管镜检查证据的有效性。
招募了新手（n = 29）、中级水平（n = 25）和专家（n = 24）泌尿外科医生参与本研究。新手被随机分配到A组和B组，A组使用已验证的Uro-Scopic训练器（英国布里斯托尔的Limbs and Things公司）进行两组操作，B组使用Endo-Uro训练器。随后，他们交叉使用另一种模型进行相同的两组操作。中级和专家组仅在Endo-Uro训练器上进行相同的操作。收集并分析客观结构化技术技能评估（OSATS）和操作时间。邀请所有参与者完成最终评估调查。
评估调查显示在各个方面的逼真度评分，平均李克特评分为4.04/5。新手与专家之间（P = 0.0014）以及中级与专家之间（P = 0.0113）在操作时间上观察到显著差异。所有组之间的OSATS评分差异显著（P < 0.0001）。B组新手在交叉后操作时间（P = 0.0012）和OSATS评分（P = 0.0439）上显示出统计学上的显著改善。交叉后A组和B组之间在操作时间上也观察到显著差异（P = 0.0025）。
本研究证明了Endo-Uro训练器模型的内容效度。此外，该模型能够区分经验水平，这有助于接受有效性假设。使用该模型操作的改善证明了其训练有效性。
