Realistic Anatomical Prostate Models for Surgical Skills Workshops Using Ballistic Gelatin for Nerve-Sparing Radical Prostatectomy and Fruit for Simple Prostatectomy

PURPOSE: Understanding of prostate anatomy has evolved as techniques have been refined and improved for radical prostatectomy (RP), particularly regarding the importance of the neurovascular bundles for erectile function. The objectives of this study were to develop inexpensive and simple but anatomically accurate prostate models not involving human or animal elements to teach the terminology and practical aspects of nerve-sparing RP and simple prostatectomy (SP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The RP model used a Foley catheter with ballistics gelatin in the balloon and mesh fabric (neurovascular bundles) and balloons (prostatic fascial layers) on either side for the practice of inter- and intrafascial techniques. The SP model required only a ripe clementine, for which the skin represented compressed normal prostate, the pulp represented benign tissue, and the pith mimicked fibrous adhesions. A modification with a balloon through the fruit center acted as a "urethra." RESULTS: Both models were easily created and successfully represented the principles of anatomical nerve-sparing RP and SP. Both models were tested in workshops by urologists and residents of differing levels with positive feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Low-fidelity models for prostate anatomy demonstration and surgical practice are feasible. They are inexpensive and simple to construct. Importantly, these models can be used for education on the practical aspects of nerve-sparing RP and SP. The models will require further validation as educational and competency tools, but as we move to an era in which human donors and animal experiments become less ethical and more difficult to complete, so too will low-fidelity models become more attractive

Five-year data from the Oxford Laser Prostatectomy Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the natural history of a group of patients who underwent contact laser prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were followed up at 5 years after enrolling in a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of TURP vs contact laser prostatectomy. RESULTS: Of the initial trial patients, 11.5% had died (seven in the laser and 10 in the TURP arm) and eight (5.4%) were too incapacitated by coexistent medical disease to respond to the questionnaires. Thirty-eight patients were not available for follow-up, despite numerous invitations. Thirteen of the laser patients (18%) and 11 of the TURP patients (14.5%) had undergone re-operation. Two patients from each arm had received alpha-blockers for worsening symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Five years after prostatic surgery, a significant number of patients were dead or disabled by coexistent medical disease. The re-operation rate after TURP and contact laser prostatectomy were similar