{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034722222222222224, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018790849673202614, 'mean_word_length': 5.4109947643979055, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
MP57-10 VIRTUAL LEARNING WITH REMOTE PROCTORING FOR INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS (IPP) TRAINING: A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SOCIALLY DISTANCED EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has changed the educational landscape precluding in-person surgical training opportunities. We examine the utility and feasibility of remote proctoring for IPP surgical skills training using a full-procedural hydrogel simulation model. METHODS: 9 urology residents at the University of Rochester (PGY 1-4) were paired and remotely proctored by an expert at Boston University using the Zoom web conferencing tool. During IPP training sessions, both participants and proctor were given a model with a full surgical setup. Pre-learning included a narrated full-procedural demonstration by the proctor followed by a full procedure IPP simulation guided by proctor feedback. Pre- and post-training surveys assessed confidence (0-100) and procedural knowledge (15 questions). Opinions on virtual learning and its application to this training session were collected. RESULTS: 66.7% of residents never performed a live IPP placement, while the remaining completed a median (IQR) of 6 cases (4.5-8). All confidence and knowledge measures significantly increased after the remote session (Table 1). Knowledge assessment scores increased by 13% following the remote session, which was reflected in a 48%, 22% and 18% increase in participants' confidence in the ability to perform a simulated IPP procedure, knowledge of IPP procedural steps and applied anatomy respectively. Despite, 77.8% of residents with no prior experience with hands-on virtual training, 100% found remote training valuable and beneficial for learning basic IPP skills and steps of the procedure. The residents highly rated the ability to practice complex skills with zero-patient harm (88.9%), the non-biohazardous nature of the model (66.7%), and having their own hydrogel training model (88.9%). The limitations include single session, lower quality communication and lack of an interface for physical guidance within the virtual environment. CONCLUSIONS: Remote proctoring using a web conferencing tool and non-biohazardous IPP simulation model is feasible with improvement in both confidence and procedural knowledge. Despite its limitations, this approach provides opportunities for hands-on training with remote experts in a safe environment during the cessation of in-person training events.