Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Animal Laboratory Training: Current Status and How Essential Is It?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery

Abstract

For the successful transition of new technology into clinical practice, surgeons must continue to train concurrently with newly introduced technology for the benefit of both surgeons and future patients. Various training methods have been proposed to assimilate robotic-assisted technology for clinical applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hance J, Aggarwal R, Undre S, et al. Skills training in telerobotic surgery. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2005;1(2):7–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Keeley FX, Eden CG, Tolley DA, et al. The British Association of Urological Surgeons: guidelines for training in laparoscopy. BJU Int. 2007;100(2):379–381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chitwood WR, Nifong LW, Elbeery JE, et al. Robotic mitral valve repair: trapezoidal resection and prosthetic annuloplasty with the da Vinci surgical system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120(6):1171–1172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Thiel DD, Winfield HN. Robotics in urology: past, present and future. J Endourol. 2008;22(4):825–830.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McDougall EM, Corica FA, Chou DS, et al. Short-term impact of a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy ‘mini-residency’ experience on postgraduate urologists’ practice patterns. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2006;2:70–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rashid HH, Leung YM, Rashid MJ, et al. Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2006;68:75–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cosman P, Hemli JM, Ellis AM, et al. Learning the surgical craft: a review of skills training options. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77:838–845.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van Velthoven RF, Hoffmann P. Methods for laparoscopic training using animal models. Curr Urol Rep. 2006;7(2):114–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hammoud MM, Nuthalapaty FS, Goepfert AR, et al. To the point: medical education review of the role of simulators in surgical training. Am J Obst Gynec. 2008;199(34): 338–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vlaovic PD, Sargent ER, Boker JR, et al. Immediate impact of an intensive one-week laparoscopy training program on laparoscopic skills among postgraduate urologists. JSLS. 2008;12:1–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Belsley SJ, Byer A, Ballantyne GH, et al. 1st International Congress of the Minimally Invasive Robotic Association (MIRA), 7–10 December 2006, Innsbruck, Austria. Congress summary: MIRA and the future of surgical robotics. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2006;2:98–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pierorazio PM, Allaf ME. Minimally invasive surgical training: challenges and solutions. Urol Oncol. 2009;27(2):208–213.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Roberts KE, Bell RL, Duffy AJ. Evolution of surgical skills training. World J Gastroenterol. May 28, 2006;12(20):3219–3224.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hanly EJ, Talamini MA. Robotic abdominal surgery. Am J Surg. 2004;188:19S–26S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mehrabi A, Yetimoglu CL, Nickkholgh A, et al. Development and evaluation of a training module for the clinical introduction of the da Vinci robotic system in visceral and vascular surgery. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1376–1382.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hanly EJ, Marohn MR, Bachman SL, et al. Multiservice laparoscopic surgical training using the da Vinci surgical system. Amer J Surg. 2004;187:309–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG. Effectiveness of laparoscopic cadaveric dissection in enhancing resident comprehension of pelvic anatomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;291:492–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lecuru F, Robin F, Taurelle R. Laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy in an anatomical model: results of an experimental comparative trail. J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997;72:51–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kunkler K. The role of medical simulation: an overview. Int J Med Robot. 2006;2:203–210.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chitwood WR, Nifong LW, Chapman WH, et al. Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann Surg. 2001;234(4):475–486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology. 1999;53(6):1099–1103.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gill IS, Sung GT. Hsu et al. Robotic remote laparoscopic nephrectomy and adrenalectomy: the initial experience. J Urol. 2000;164(6):2082–2085.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sung GT, Gill IS. Remote, robotic laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation with ureteral advancement technique. Dialogues Pediatr Urol. 2001;24:10.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sung GT, Gill IS. Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the da Vinci and ZEUS systems. Urology. 2001;58(6):893–898.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hubert J, Feuillu B, Mangin P, et al. Laparoscopic computer-assisted pyeloplasty: the results of experimental surgery in pigs. BJU Inter. 2003;92:437–440.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Passerotti CC, Passerotti AM, Dall’Oglio MF, et al. Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208: 576–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Passerotti CC, Nguyen HT, Lais A, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic ileal bladder augmentation: defining techniques and potential pitfalls. J Endourol. 2008;22(2): 355–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ponsky LE, Cherullo EE, Banks KL, et al. Laparoscopic transuterine fetal vesicostomy: a feasibility study. J Urol. 2004;172:2391–2394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Passerotti CC, Barnewolt C, Xuewu J, et al. In utero treatment for bladder outlet obstruction using robot assisted laparoscopic techniques. J Urol. 2008;180:1790–1794.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study in a rat model. J Urol. 2004;171:1720–1725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gill IS, Ukimura O, Rubinstein M, et al. Lateral pedicle control during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: refined technique. Urology. 2005;65(1):23–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gianduzzo T, Colombo JR Jr, Haber GP, et al. Laser robotically assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: a pilot study of technical feasibility in the canine model. BJU Inter. 2008;102:598–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Haber GP, Crouzet S, Kamoi C, et al. Robotic NOTES (natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery) in reconstructive urology: initial laboratory experience. Urology. 2008;71:996–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hanly EJ, Miller BE, Kumar R, et al. Mentoring console improves collaboration and teaching in surgical robotics. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2006;16(5):445–451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sterbis JR, Janly EJ, Herman BC, et al. Transcontinental telesurgical nephrectomy using the da Vinci robot in a porcine model. Urology. 2008;71:971–973.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ms. Seh-Rin Sung for her assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Dong-A University Hospital, Busan, South Korea

    Gyung Tak Sung

  2. Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China

    Yinghao Sun

Authors
  1. Gyung Tak Sung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yinghao Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gyung Tak Sung .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Sciences, Dept. Urology, All India Institute of, Ansari Nagar, New Dehli, 110029, India

    Ashok Kumar Hemal

  2. Henry Ford Health System, W. Grand Blvd. 2799, Detroit, 48202, Michigan, USA

    Mani Menon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sung, G.T., Sun, Y. (2011). Animal Laboratory Training: Current Status and How Essential Is It?. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-114-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-114-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-113-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-114-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation