Presented by: Carlotta Nedbal MD
Urology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy, AND Department of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.

Introduction

To report the bibliometric publication trend on the application of “Simulation in Urolithiasis” over a period of 26 years from 1997 to 2023. We conducted this study analyzing the publication trends associated with simulation devices and stone disease, including both training simulation and surgical studies.

Materials

We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature searching through PubMed all published papers on “simulation” in “Urolithiasis” from 1997-2023 with no language restrictions. Papers were then divided in three major categories: A - Training, B -Clinical (surgical) and C –Diagnosis (radiology). Two time periods were identified, and papers were recorded according to year of publication: Period1 (1997-2009) and Period2 (2010-2022).

Results

,

168 papers were identified over a 26-year time, of which only 4 were not in English language. Groups A, B and C included 94, 66and 8papers respectively and there was an overall increase from Period1 to Period2 of +269%(p=0.0002). This increase for groups A, B and C was+279% (p=0.001), +264% (p=0.0180), +200% (p=0.2105) respectively.

Group A papers included significant rise in papers on “URS training” (+225%, p=0.0016) and in “PCNLtraining” (+850%, p=0.0023) and a similar trend for both procedures where studies reported them together (+180%). In the last 5 years, from 2018 to 2022, URS appears to be the main focus of publications on training with simulation, with 17 papers in index journals. Group B papers included rise in papers in “URS”(+360%,p=0.0039) and “PCNL” (+110%, p=0.0181), while the analysis of papers on “SWL” (-33%) and “ureteral stenting” (-50%) showed a decreasing trend. Group C papers included rise in papers by +200%, with a low number of publications in both period demonstrating a lower interest compared to other simulations.

Conclusion

Simulation has been widely discussed among publications in the last two decades, and  The trend of publication is still increasing, with a special interest reserved for application of simulators in residents training as well as in performance studies. PCNL and URS simulation has grown substantially, with numerous applications, from teaching to patient-specific surgical planning and counseling, which should hopefully improve clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Funding

None

Lead Authors

Victoria Jahrreiss, MD
Department of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton, UK, AND Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Clara Cerrato, MD
Department of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.

Co-Authors

Amelia Pietropaolo, MD
Department of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton, UK

Andrea Benedetto Galosi, Professor
Urology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.

Domenico Veneziano, MD
Smith Institute of Urology, Northwell Health, New York, NY, USA.

Panagiotis Kallidonis, MD
Department of Urology, University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece

Bhaskar Kumar Somani, Professor
Department of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.