Virtual reality vs. physical models in surgical skills training. An update of the evidence

Purpose of reviewSimulation is a key component of surgical training, enabling trainees to develop their skills in a safe environment. With simulators broadly grouped into physical models and virtual-reality (VR) simulators, it is important to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the simulator types in terms of validity as well as cost. The review aims to compare the benefits and drawbacks of novel VR and physical simulators within the broader themes of endourology, laparoscopic and robotic operations, and other urological procedures.Recent findingsKey benefits of bench models include their comparatively lower cost, easy access and provision of haptic feedback, whereas VR simulators are generally self-sufficient, reusable and enable skills of haemostasis to be practised. The advent of perfused 3D printed simulators across a range of urological procedures may replace cadavers as the traditional gold-standard simulation modality.SummaryAlthough possessing differing strengths and downsides, VR and physical simulators when used together can have an additive effect due to skill transferability across the platforms. Further comparative studies are required to directly quantify the differences between physical models and VR simulators in terms of performance metrics and cost-effectiveness. There is lack of validated VR simulators for open and reconstructive procedures.