The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2291-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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
e.Med Kampagnen-Visual, Mail Icon II