Table 1.

Comparison of the different surgical training models

Model	Strengths	Weaknesses
Task deconstruction models	Address metrics and are cost effective, e.g. chicken gizzard model for vesico-urethral anastmosis	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 pathology and does not bleed
		Limited accessibility
3D printed models [10]	Flexible training model	Currently, high development costs (lowered if printed casts rather than printed models)
	Can incorporate pathology and vascularisation
	Increasingly realistic tissue handling	Models that address specific defined metrics need to be developed
	Can incorporate metrics and benchmarks [10]
VR simulation	Advanced procedural training models available (e.g. robotic prostatectomy, hysterectomy)	Current scope/range/image quality limited
AR simulation	Potential to develop	Limited development