Urology Residents' Experience and Attitude Toward Surgical Simulation: Presenting our 4-Year Experience With a Multi-institutional, Multi-modality Simulation Model

Objective To evaluate the Urological resident's attitude and experience with surgical simulation in residency education using a multi-institutional, multi-modality model. Materials and Methods Residents from 6 area urology training programs rotated through simulation stations in 4 consecutive sessions from 2014 to 2017. Workshops included GreenLight photovaporization of the prostate, ureteroscopic stone extraction, laparoscopic peg transfer, 3-dimensional laparoscopy rope pass, transobturator sling placement, intravesical injection, high definition video system trainer, vasectomy, and Urolift. Faculty members provided teaching assistance, objective scoring, and verbal feedback. Participants completed a nonvalidated questionnaire evaluating utility of the workshop and soliciting suggestions for improvement. Results Sixty-three of 75 participants (84%) (postgraduate years 1-6) completed the exit questionnaire. Median rating of exercise usefulness on a scale of 1-10 ranged from 7.5 to 9. On a scale of 0-10, cumulative median scores of the course remained high over 4 years: time limit per station (9; interquartile range [IQR] 2), faculty instruction (9, IQR 2), ease of use (9, IQR 2), face validity (8, IQR 3), and overall course (9, IQR 2). On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in rating of domains between postgraduate years. Sixty-seven percent (42/63) believe that simulation training should be a requirement of Urology residency. Ninety-seven percent (63/65) viewed the laboratory as beneficial to their education. Conclusion This workshop model is a valuable training experience for residents. Most participants believe that surgical simulation is beneficial and should be a requirement for Urology residency. High ratings of usefulness for each exercise demonstrated excellent face validity provided by the course.