Table 2.

Summary of simulation models currently used in surgical training

Model	Strengths	Weaknesses
Task deconstruction models	Address metrics and are cost effective, e.g., Chicken gizzard model for vesico-urethral anastomosis [25]	Limited development to comprehensively address metrics, benchmarks and error management
Porcine model	Flexible training model for tissue handling	Expensive Not human anatomy No human pathology Limited accessibility
Canine cadaver model	Flexible training model for tissue handling	Not human anatomy No human pathology Limited accessibility
Human cadaver model	Flexible training model	Expensive Lacks human pathology and does not bleed Limited accessibility
3D printed models	Flexible training model Can incorporates pathology and vascularisation Increasingly realistic tissue handling Can incorporate metrics and benchmarks [26]	Currently, high development costs (lowered if printed casts rather than printed models) Models that address specific defined metrics need to be developed
VR simulation	Advanced procedural training models available (e.g., RARP, RAH)	Current scope/range/image quality limited
AR simulation	Potential to develop [27]	Limited development