Current status of wet lab and cadaveric simulation in urological training: A systematic review

  • Ahmed Al-Jabir GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3714-211X
  • Abdullatif Aydin MRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5440-7741
  • Hussain Al-Jabir William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
  • M. Shamim Khan MRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London. Department of Urology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust.
  • Prokar Dasgupta MRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London. Department of Urology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust.
  • Kamran Ahmed MRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London. Department of Urology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
Keywords: wet-lab training, in vivo, ex vivo, surgical, simulation, education, cadaveric, animal models

Abstract

Introduction: We undertook a systematic review of the use of wet lab (animal and cadaveric) simulation models in urological training, with an aim to establishing a level of evidence (LoE) for studies and level of recommendation (LoR) for models, as well as evaluating types of validation.

Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies using search terms including a combination of “surgery,” “surgical training,” and “medical education.” These results were combined with “wet lab,” “animal model,” “cadaveric,” and “in-vivo.” Studies were then assigned a LoE and LoR if appropriate as per the education-modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification.

Results: A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was a mean of 23.1 (±19.2) participants per study with a median of 20. Overall, the studies were largely of low quality, with 90.7% of studies being lower than LoE 2a (n=26 for LoE 2b and n=13 for LoE 3). The majority (72.1%, n=31) of studies were in animal models and 27.9% (n=12) were in cadaveric models.

Conclusions: Simulation in urological education is becoming more prevalent in the literature, however, there is a focus on animal rather than cadaveric simulation, possibly due to cost and ethical considerations. Studies are also predominately of a low LoE; higher LoEs, especially randomized controlled studies, are needed.

Published
2020-06-05
How to Cite
Al-Jabir, A., Aydin, A., Al-Jabir, H., Khan, M. S., Dasgupta, P., & Ahmed, K. (2020). Current status of wet lab and cadaveric simulation in urological training: A systematic review. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 14(11), E594-600. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6520