Abstract
Background:
Uro Trainer (UT; Karl Storz GmbH, Tuttlingen, Germany), a virtual reality simulator for transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), has been infrequently validated. To ascertain the utility of such a trainer, we performed a basic face and content validity study.
Materials and Methods:
Ten experts and nine novices (done more than 50 and less than 3 TURPs, respectively) performed a TURP on UT and rated simulator usefulness (seven items), realism (five items), and overall score (one item) on a Likert's 10-point scale. Scores of <6.0, 6.0 to 8.0, and >8.0 on the Likert scale 1 to 10 were considered not, slightly, and highly acceptable, respectively.
Results:
Novices rated UT as more helpful than experts in the following aspects of face and content validity: usefulness general (p = 0.0001, statistically significant), hand–eye coordination (p = 0.04, statistically significant), material knowledge and skills (p = 0.02, statistically significant), spatial skills (p = 0.003, statistically significant), cystoscopy (p = 0.002, statistically significant), TURP (0.002, statistically significant), visual aspects (p = 0.003, statistically significant), and overall score (p = 0.007, statistically significant). One item of usefulness (coagulation) and three items of realism (tissue feel, depth feel, and capsule identification) failed to impress both novice and experts. UT usefulness domain was highly acceptable for 77.7% and slightly acceptable for 100% of the novices and experts, respectively. The general realism domain was highly and slightly acceptable for 33.3% and 66.6% of the novices while slightly acceptable for 100% of the experts.
Conclusion:
Novice group found UT more useful than the experts group. Further modification is advisable to increase the realism of the UT.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.