ANZ journal of surgery · 2023
Use of Thiel-embalmed cadavers in urology training and their ability to retain real-life anatomy: a systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chytas Dimitrios, Gyftopoulos Kostis
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Thiel-embalmed cadavers (TeCs) have been proposed as an alternative and probably safer method of surgical training, compared to formalin-embalmed cadavers. We aimed to perform a systematic review on the use of TeCs in urology training and their ability to represent real-life anatomy.
METHODS: PubMed, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases were searched for articles with purpose to explore the use of TeCs in urology training, without date restrictions, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. From each paper, we evaluated the type of procedure, the number of participants, the type of study, the educational outcomes and their level, according to Kirkpatrick hierarchy.
RESULTS: Of the 225 records initially retrieved, eight articles were eventually included. All studies evaluated participants' perceptions about the procedure. Overall, urology trainees and specialists have positively commented on the educational value of TeCs, which have been also found able to adequately mimic real-life conditions. In all the eight studies, trainees stated that tissue quality of TeCs was adequately realistic and considered TeCs as a useful surgical training tool.
CONCLUSION: Although the use of TeCs in urology training has so far been limited, their value as a surgical training tool has been positively perceived. These outcomes suggest that TeCs may also enhance urology trainees' surgical skills and may encourage their implementation as a simulation tool in urology training.
METHODS: PubMed, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases were searched for articles with purpose to explore the use of TeCs in urology training, without date restrictions, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. From each paper, we evaluated the type of procedure, the number of participants, the type of study, the educational outcomes and their level, according to Kirkpatrick hierarchy.
RESULTS: Of the 225 records initially retrieved, eight articles were eventually included. All studies evaluated participants' perceptions about the procedure. Overall, urology trainees and specialists have positively commented on the educational value of TeCs, which have been also found able to adequately mimic real-life conditions. In all the eight studies, trainees stated that tissue quality of TeCs was adequately realistic and considered TeCs as a useful surgical training tool.
CONCLUSION: Although the use of TeCs in urology training has so far been limited, their value as a surgical training tool has been positively perceived. These outcomes suggest that TeCs may also enhance urology trainees' surgical skills and may encourage their implementation as a simulation tool in urology training.