Journal of Surgical Simulation 2021; 8: A: 21 - 21

Published: 30 June 2021


Meeting abstract

Special Issue: Endoscopic surgical simulation using low-fidelity and virtual reality transurethral resection simulators in Urology Simulation Bootcamp Course: trainee feedback assessment study

Christopher Berridge, Mithun Kailavasan, Grigorios Athanasiadis, Agapios Gkentzis, Tariq Tassadaq , Victor Palit, Bhavan Rai, Chandra S Biyani and Ghulam Nabi
Corresponding author: Christopher Berridge, Leicester General Hospital, UK. Email:


Introduction: Transurethral resection of bladder lesions (TURBT) and prostate (TURP) remain major surgical procedures for urology trainees to achieve competence.  Trainee assessments and feedback are crucial for evaluating simulation models in effective simulation-based training. Our objective was to study trainees’ feedback and rating of models used at the Urology Simulation Bootcamp Course (USBC).

Methods: The study was performed during the 2019 USBC Transurethral resection (TUR) module at the Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, UK. Trainees were required to evaluate their prior experience in performing TURBT and TURP procedures. Trainees simulated resection on two models; low-fidelity tissue model (Samed, GmBH) and virtual reality simulator (TURPMentorTM, 3D Systems). Following module completion, trainees completed a questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate their assessment of the models for surgical training.

Results: 174 simulation assessments were performed. All trainees had previously performed <50 TUR procedures. The Samed model median score for appearance was “4/5” (good), texture and feel “5/5” (excellent) and conductibility “5/5”. The TURMentor median score for appearance was “4/5”, texture and feel “4/5” and conductibility “4/5”.  Overall reported ability to simulate TUR was “4/5” for each model. The most common criticism of the Samed model was that it failed to mimic bleeding. Trainees felt that the TURMentor haptic feedback was inadequate to allow for close resection, and did not calibrate movements accurately. 91% of trainees “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the use of both models improved their confidence in performing TUR.

Conclusions: Both simulators were rated highly by urology trainees, improve confidence and complement each other in providing endoscopic resection simulation.


urology; simulation; transurethral resection; endoscopic resection simulation

Additional Information

This presentation was given at the SES 2020 online conference, 4 July 2020.