MP23-20 LIVE SURGICAL DEMONSTRATIONS IN UROLOGY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Surgical Education & Skills Assessment II1 Apr 2015MP23-20 LIVE SURGICAL DEMONSTRATIONS IN UROLOGY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Oliver Brunckhorst, Ben Challacombe, Hamid Abboudi, Muhammad Khan, Prokar Dasgupta, and Kamran Ahmed Oliver BrunckhorstOliver Brunckhorst More articles by this author , Ben ChallacombeBen Challacombe More articles by this author , Hamid AbboudiHamid Abboudi More articles by this author , Muhammad KhanMuhammad Khan More articles by this author , Prokar DasguptaProkar Dasgupta More articles by this author , and Kamran AhmedKamran Ahmed More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1263AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Whilst live surgeries are common conferences, little is known about their educational value and risks associated with these procedures to the patient. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to: (1) explore the evidence exists for live surgery as a training tool, (2) identify articles analysing patient safety of live procedures, (3) highlight guidelines provided by urological societies for live surgical procedures. METHODS A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library for studies analysing patient safety and educational value of live procedures. Additionally, urological societies were searched for guidelines on live procedures. RESULTS Through the search 1107 articles were identified and 16 documents were included within the review. Six studies analysed the educational value of live demonstrations demonstrating its feasibility, acceptability, construct and concurrent validity of live surgery was demonstrated. Eight studies analysed the patient safety of live procedures and found that they do not affect complication rates (p<0.05), however, they may impact success rates (6.6 – 17% lower in live cases). Within urology two societies have issued guidelines on conducting live procedures including the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA). Both endorse live surgery if conducted along their guidelines produced. Additionally, they highlight the need to follow a patient centred approach, to have a patient advocate present and to sign an additional consent form for the live procedure. CONCLUSIONS There is a paucity of data for the educational value of live surgical procedures. Further research must be conducted to ensure these procedures are worthwhile to conduct in terms of educational value. Patient safety of these procedures has to be questioned due to lower success rates demonstrated, however further research specifically for large urological procedures would be of benefit. Current urological guidelines highlight the need for a patient advocate and a patient centred approach to be present. Additionally, a central pan-specialty, regulatory body is required to ensure regulations are being adhered to. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e275 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Oliver Brunckhorst More articles by this author Ben Challacombe More articles by this author Hamid Abboudi More articles by this author Muhammad Khan More articles by this author Prokar Dasgupta More articles by this author Kamran Ahmed More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...