Residents and patients benefit from surgical simulation on a live porcine model, could we consider it as ethical?
Prog Urol 2021;
31:618-626. [PMID:
34158220 DOI:
10.1016/j.purol.2021.01.008]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2020] [Revised: 01/16/2021] [Accepted: 01/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse