Shaping open surgical skills: Eight years of reconstructive urology simulation training in the UK.

Rahman, S.; Wen Ho, H.; Shekhar Biyani, C.; Hamid Elmamoun, M.; Hanchanale, V.; Jain, S.; Hickerton, B.; Hoyle, A.; Turner, A.

Shaping open surgical skills: Eight years of reconstructive urology simulation training in the UK.

All Authors

Rahman, S.

Wen Ho, H.

Shekhar Biyani, C.

Hamid Elmamoun, M.

Hanchanale, V.

Jain, S.

Hickerton, B.

Hoyle, A.

Turner, A.

LTHT Author

Wen Ho, H.
Biyani, Shekhar
Hamid Elmamoun, Mamoun
Jain, Sunjay
Turner, Alexander

LTHT Department

Abdominal Medicine & Surgery
Urology
Leeds Children's Hospital
Children's Services
Paediatric Urology

Publication Date

2026

Item Type

Journal Article

Subject

SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE , TRAINING SUPPORT , URETERAL DISEASES , UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES , SIMULATION TRAINING

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Urology Simulation Bootcamp Course (USBC) was developed to address the lack of a structured national programme for practical urological skills training. Feedback from urology colleagues and trainees highlighted the need for focused procedural teaching, particularly in reconstructive urology. In response, a dedicated reconstructive skills module was established within the USBC in 2015. A descriptive report of a structured educational module is presented. METHODS: The module concentrated on four key reconstructive procedures: small bowel anastomosis, stoma formation, uretero-ileal anastomosis, and repair of ureteric and bladder injuries. This hands-on training was delivered with a high faculty-to-trainee ratio, allowing one-to-one mentorship. Faculty recruitment was based on subspecialist expertise and enthusiasm for medical education, ensuring high-quality instruction and one-to-one training. Continuous evaluation and feedback from participants shaped iterative improvements to course content and delivery. Feedback was collated from 2016 onwards, which facilitated the revision of the course over subsequent iterations. RESULTS: Over eight years, 378 trainees participated in the course. Delegates consistently praised the programme, particularly the individualised mentoring and the quality of tissue models used. The evolving curriculum, informed by systematic feedback, ensured relevance and sustainability. One notable adaptation was reducing the time devoted to small bowel anastomosis in order to expand training on ureteric reimplantation and bladder repair, reflecting delegate preferences and clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: Our simulation-based approach to teaching reconstructive urological skills has demonstrated extremely positive results from the delegates consistently over the eight-year period. Focused mentorship and amendments based on feedback have been vital in ensuring a high degree of satisfaction throughout the evolution of the course. Crown Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.