Three-dimensional printed hydrogel model vs cadaver: comparing inflatable penile prosthesis training and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis implantation offers a durable, safe, and effective treatment option for male erectile dysfunction; however, many urologists feel apprehensive and uncomfortable placing penile prostheses due to limited training, low surgical experience, and intra- and postoperative complication management. AIM: To compare a previously validated hydrogel inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) training model with cadaver simulations across 4 main categories: anatomic replication and realism, procedural replication and realism, educational effectiveness, and efficacy and safety. METHODS: An overall 88 participants (15 attendings, 18 fellows, and 55 residents) performed guided IPP placements on a cadaver and a hydrogel model. Based on a 5-point Likert scale, postsurveys were used to assess the participants' opinions regarding anatomic replication and realism, procedural replication and realism, educational effectiveness, and safety between the hydrogel model and cadavers. OUTCOMES: A direct head-to-head scenario was created, allowing participants to fully utilize the hydrogel model and cadaver, which ensured the most accurate comparison possible. RESULTS: A total of 84% agreed that the hydrogel model replicates the relevant human cadaveric anatomy for the procedure, whereas 69% agreed that the hydrogel tissue resembles the appearance of cadaveric tissue. Regarding the pubic bone, outer skin, corporal bodies, dartos layer, and scrotum, 79%, 74%, 82%, 46%, and 30% respectively agreed that the hydrogel tissue resembled the texture/behavior of cadavers. Furthermore, 66% of participants agreed that the hydrogel model replicates all the procedural steps. Specifically, participants agreed that the model replicates the skin incision/dartos dissection (74%), placement of stay suture and corporotomy (92%), corporal dilation (81%), measurement of prosthetic size (98%), reservoir placement (43%), IPP placement (91%), scrotal pump placement (48%), and skin closure (51%). Finally, 86%, 93%, and 78% agreed that the hydrogel model is useful for improving technical skills, as a teaching/practicing tool, and as an evaluation tool, respectively. To conclude, 81% of participants stated that they would include the hydrogel model platform in their current training. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By replicating the IPP procedure, the hydrogel model offers an additional high-fidelity training opportunity for urologists, allowing them to improve their skills and confidence in placing penile prostheses, with the goal of improving patient surgical outcomes. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The hydrogel training model allows users to perform the entire IPP placement procedure with high anatomic realism and educational effectiveness, maintaining many of the high-fidelity benefits seen in cadavers while improving safety and accessibility. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, this high-fidelity nonbiohazardous training model can be used to supplement and bolster current IPP training curriculums.