Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKozan, A. A.
dc.contributor.authorLogan, M.
dc.contributor.authorParnham, Arie S
dc.contributor.authorLiew, M.
dc.contributor.authorBarrass, B.
dc.contributor.authorVenugopal, S.
dc.contributor.authorBiyani, C. S.
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, J.
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T10:04:39Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T10:04:39Z
dc.date.issued2021en
dc.identifier.citationKozan AA, Logan M, Parnham A, Liew M, Barrass B, Venugopal S, et al. Design and assessment of a penile fracture simulation model [Internet]. Vol. 45, Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition). Elsevier BV; 2021. p. 582–6.en
dc.identifier.pmid34690103en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.acuroe.2020.10.014en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/624768
dc.description.abstractObjective: To design and assess a novel penile fracture simulation model for teaching penile fracture repair. Methods: We used a validated circumcision simulator to create a model. Foreskin for a circumcision was divided into two halves. A transverse slit ("simulated fracture") was created on one part of the first half of the foreskin (mimicking "tunica") and was applied over the penile model. A red jelly tablet ("clot") was placed underneath the cut. A second full-length of foreskin was applied over it to cover the defect. The model was assessed by participants and expert faculty at the Urology Simulation Boot Camp. Evaluation was performed using a 5-point Likert Scale questionnaire. Data was analysed using Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS Statistics V25. The intra-class correlation was calculated using a "One-way random model". Results: Twenty-two urology trainees and four experts participated in the evaluation. The majority of trainees strongly agreed (59%, n = 13) the model is useful for training with experts similarly agreeing in 75% of cases. The appearance of penile fracture was considered good by both trainees (68%, n = 14) and faculty (75%). Overall, the ability of the model to represent a realistic simulation of the task was considered excellent by 23% of participants and good by 64%. Personal confidence after simulation in managing a similar situation was considered high among trainees. The main difficulties reported were related to fascial planes and urethra. Conclusion: This is the first simulation model for penile fracture repair and has demonstrated face validity at a national urology bootcamp.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2020.10.014en
dc.titleDesign and assessment of a penile fracture simulation modelen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Urology, Hull University Teaching Hospital, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, United Kingdomen
dc.identifier.journalActas Urologicas Espanolaen
dc.description.noteen]


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record