To evaluate the opinion of urologists and their audience regarding patient safety and educational value of live surgical demonstrations (LSD) and semi-live surgical demonstrations (semi-LSD).
Following the ‘2017 Challenges in Endourology’ meeting, a survey addressing patient safety and the educational value of LSD and semi-LSD was disseminated online to all participants. Survey outcomes of LSD and semi-LSD were compared.
All 279 respondents attended both LSD and semi-LSD. Overall, 53% of said respondents stated that patient safety was always the highest priority for LSD, while 74% noted the same for semi-LSD. The complication risk in LSD was perceived equal by 57% of the respondents when compared to cases of similar difficulty in routine practice, while 38% perceived it as a greater risk. For semi-LSD, the complication risk was perceived equal by 84%, while 5% perceived it to be a greater risk in comparison to general practice. On a scale from 0 (no value) to 10 (highly valuable), the average educational value of LSD and semi-LSD was rated 8.4 and 8.3, respectively. A substantial percentage of the surgeons who perform LSD express concerns that live surgery is not the optimal setting to ensure patient safety.
LSD remains a popular tool for surgical education among urologists and their audience. However, patient safety remains a concern and is perceived less of a concern for semi-LSD. The educational value of LSD and semi-LSD was scored equally high. Therefore, we should consider to advocate the use of semi-LSD more often.
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 34 kb)345_2018_2291_MOESM1_ESM.doc
Artibani W, Ficarra V, Challacombe BJ et al (2014) EAU policy on live surgery events. Eur Urol 66(1):87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.028CrossRefPubMed
Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ, Molyneux A, Burger I, Brinjikji W, Murphy KP (2011) Live case demonstrations: patient safety, ethics, consent, and conflicts. Lancet 377(9776):1539–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60357-7CrossRefPubMed
Challacombe B, Weston R, Coughlin G, Murphy D, Dasgupta P (2010) Live surgical demonstrations in urology: valuable educational tool or putting patients at risk? BJU Int 106(11):1571–1574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09860.xCrossRefPubMed
Smith A (2012) Urological live surgery—An anathema. BJU Int 110(3):299–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11314.xCrossRefPubMed
Philip-Watson J, Khan SAA, Hadjipavlou M, Rane A, Knoll T (2014) Live surgery at conferences—Clinical benefits and ethical dilemmas. Arab J Urol 12(3):183–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.aiu.2014.04.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Duty B, Okhunov Z, Friedlander J, Okeke Z, Smith A (2012) Live surgical demonstrations: an old, but increasingly controversial practice. Urology 79(5):1185.e7–1185.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.12.037CrossRef
Ogaya-Pinies G, Abdul-Muhsin H, Palayapalayam-Ganapathi H, Bonet X, Rogers T, Rocco B, Coelho R, Hernandez-Cardona E, Jenson C, Patel V (2017) Safety of live robotic surgery: results from a single institution. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.08.004PubMed
Misraï V, Guillot-Tantay C, Pasquié M et al (2018) Comparison of Outcomes Obtained After Regular Surgery Versus Live Operative Surgical Cases: single-centre Experience with Green Laser Enucleation of the Prostate. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.001PubMed
- Surgical teaching in urology: patient safety and educational value of ‘LIVE’ and ‘SEMI-LIVE’ surgical demonstrations
Jaap D. Legemate
Stefano P. Zanetti
Jan Erik Freund
Jean J. M. C. H. de la Rosette
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- World Journal of Urology
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie
Meistgelesene Bücher in der Urologie
Mail Icon II