Search

The article reviews the book "Viva Practice for the FRCS (Urol) Examination," edited by M. Arya, I. S. Shergill, J. S. Kalsi, A. Muneer and A. R. Mundy.

The article reviews the book "Men's Health," Third Edition, edited by Roger S. Kirby, Culley C. Carson III, Alan White and Michael G. Kirby.

The article reviews the book "Robotic Urology," by Hubert John and Peter Wiklund.

The article reviews the book "Robotic Urological Surgery," edited by Vipul Patel.

Recent advancements in surgical technology, reduced working hours, and training opportunities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic have led to an increase in simulation-based training. Furthermore, a rise in endovascular procedures has led to a requirement for high-fidelity simulators that offer comprehensive feedback. This review aims to identify vascular surgery simulation models and assess their validity and levels of effectiveness (LoE) for each model in order to successfully implement them into current training curricula. PubMed and EMBASE were searched on January 1, 2021, for full-text English studies on vascular surgery simulators. Eligible articles were given validity ratings based on Messick's modern concept of validity alongside an LoE score according to McGaghie's translational outcomes. Overall 76 eligible articles validated 34 vascular surgery simulators and training courses for open and endovascular procedures. High validity ratings were achieved across studies for: content (35), response processes (12), the internal structure (5), relations to other variables (57), and consequences (2). Only seven studies achieved an LoE greater than 3/5. Overall, ANGIO Mentor was the most highly validated and effective simulator and was the only simulator to achieve an LoE of 5/5. Simulation-based training in vascular surgery is a continuously developing field with exciting future prospects, demonstrated by the vast number of models and training courses. To effectively integrate simulation models into current vascular surgery curricula and assessments, there is a need for studies to look at trainee skill retention over a longer period of time. A more detailed discussion on cost-effectiveness is also needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tools for assessment of technical skills are a crucial part of surgical education. They provide trainees with quantitative feedback highlighting both proficiency and areas for improvement. For this to be relevant to day-to-day practice, the tools used have to be validated and relevant to each surgical situation. This study aims to evaluate the validity of assessment tools used within surgery. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, a systematic review was conducted searching the MEDLINE and Embase databases (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42018104674). Studies utilizing any assessment tool in any surgical specialty were included. Messick's criteria were used for literature evaluation, and the Modified Educational Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine was used to assess levels of recommendation. A total of 303 studies and 76 tools were included. The most commonly used tool was Objective Structured Assessment Tool Skills (OSATS; n = 137, 45.2%). OSATS was used in conjunction with another tool or tools in an additional 55 studies (18.2%). Seven further tools were used in at least 3 studies. A total of five studies evaluated contained all five aspects of Messick's validity. There are several widely validated tools for assessing technical skills, the most common of which is OSATS. There is an emerging trend for crowdsourcing as a quick, cheap method for assessment of technical skills. This technique has been validated using both GEARS and GOALS. Numerous tools were found to be used only once and demonstrate a tendency for units to create their own tools for a specific task or specialty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]