Residents and patients benefit from surgical simulation on a live porcine model, could we consider it as ethical?

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to evaluate, by self-questionnaire, the feeling of participants in surgical training sessions on a live porcine model. METHODS: A computerized questionnaire (GoogleForm ©) was sent to the members of the French Association of Urologists-in-Training (AFUF) (fellows and residents). Only questionnaires from Urologists-in-training who had participated in surgical training sessions were included. The sessions consisted of performing surgeries such as laparoscopic nephrectomies or laparoscopic cystectomies. RESULTS: Overall, 198 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 36.4% (72/198) of the participants were fellows and 63.6% (126/198) were residents. According to the participants, the main interest of sessions was to be able to train for emergency situations. A total of 79.8% (158/198) of the participants wanted surgical simulation to become compulsory. To their opinion, the main advantage of surgical simulation on a live porcine model was: technical progress in 87.4% (173/198) of cases. A total of 13.1% (26/198) of the participants found it was unethical to perform the first technical procedures on live animal models. A total of 65.7% (130/198) of the participants considered that there is currently no system of substitution. CONCLUSION: For the participants, surgical training on a live porcine model allows technical progress while training for serious emergency situations. Surgeons and patients could benefit from this risk-free mock surgical scenario. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Educational program in onco-urology for young urologists: What are their needs?

PURPOSE: The emergence of new communication media such as digital contents are progressively replacing more traditional medias in the field of educational programs. Our purpose was to assess urologist in training aspirations regarding urological education. METHODS: Members of a national urologist in training association were sent an anonymous online questionnaire regarding their medical formation in the field of urology. Responders interest for urological sub-specialty or education support (new tools and traditional support) were evaluated through a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Overall, 109 young urologists (26%) responded to the survey. Most of the respondents worked during their training in an academic hospital (n=89, 82%). The three favorite tools for training chosen by the responders were: videos, workshop or masterclass, and podcasts (responders very interested were respectively n=64 (58.7%), n=50 (45.9%), and n=49 (45%)). E-mail newsletters were reported as the less useful educational tool by participants (n=38, 34.9%). Participants were very interested in improving their surgical skills and their radiological knowledge. Responders who were the most attracted by PCa were much more looking to improve their systemic treatment and radiological knowledges. CONCLUSIONS: Urologic-oncology was a priority regarding education for urologists in training. A majority of participants expressed a lack in their surgical education, revealing a reduced OR access and underlining utilization of new tools such as simulation. New digital contents such as social media or podcast achieved high interest for the participants, instead of more traditional media. There is a need that educational content evolve and uses new digital media. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Infectious complications of promontofixation, a systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery for genitourinary prolapse may be complicated, with postoperative infections. While promontofixation is recommended and widely used, the impact of postoperative infections has received little study. We consequently decided to review the literature to identify risk factors for infection. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of the literature. PubMed, Medline and the Cochrane databases up until August 2019 were examined. The keywords were: "promontofixation", "colpopexy", "sacral colpopexy", "sacrocolpopexy". The primary outcome consisted in infectious complications. We also performed a meta-analysis using RevMan software. RESULTS: Fifty-two among 1624 articles were selected. Infectious complications following promontofixation are infrequent. While few factors have been definitively associated with the occurrence of postoperative infections, associated procedures such as rectopexia or hysterectomy increase the risk of the latter. However, type of approach does not seem to affect the rate of occurrence of infectious complications. CONCLUSION: This review of the literature underscores a lack of descriptive, statistical and therapeutic data on post-promontofixation infections, which are certainly underestimated. On the other hand, it helps to identify the association of certain factors with the occurrence of postoperative infections.