Introduction: We undertook a systematic review of the use of wet lab (animal and cadaveric) simulation models in urological training, with an aim to establishing a level of evidence (LoE) for studies and level of recommendation (LoR) for models, as well as evaluating types of validation.
Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies using search terms including a combination of "surgery," "surgical training," and "medical education." These results were combined with "wet lab," "animal model," "cadaveric," and "in-vivo." Studies were then assigned a LoE and LoR if appropriate as per the education-modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification.
Results: A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was a mean of 23.1 (±19.2) participants per study with a median of 20. Overall, the studies were largely of low quality, with 90.7% of studies being lower than LoE 2a (n=26 for LoE 2b and n=13 for LoE 3). The majority (72.1%, n=31) of studies were in animal models and 27.9% (n=12) were in cadaveric models.
Conclusions: Simulation in urological education is becoming more prevalent in the literature, however, there is a focus on animal rather than cadaveric simulation, possibly due to cost and ethical considerations. Studies are also predominately of a low LoE; higher LoEs, especially randomized controlled studies, are needed.