Original Papers - Prostate Open access

Analysis of transurethral resection of prostate videos on YouTube™: Educational quality assessment

Authors

Published
30 May 2023
Section
Original Papers - Prostate
DOI
10.4081/aiua.2023.11404

Abstract

Background: Our aim was to evaluate the educational value of transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) videos on YouTube. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted for TURP videos on YouTube. Based on the Laparoscopic Surgery Video Educational Guidelines we created a checklist which includes 20 items for evaluation of the videos. IBM SPSS statistics was used for analysis. Results: A total of 104 surgical videos were assessed. The mean view count was 15647.3 (21-324.522, SD 47556.4). Video image quality found as low for 57.7% of videos. Both staff (76%) and resident (75%) rated most of the videos low educational quality. No statistically significant difference was found between staff’s total points (mean 4.35 ± SD 2.9) and resident’s total points (mean 4.63 ± SD 3.3) (p: 0.761). Positive correlation was found between view count and staff’s total points (r: 0.242 p < 0.05), resident’s total points (r: 0.340 p < 0.01). There was also positive correlation between number of likes and staff’s total points (r: 0.375 p < 0.01) and resident’s total points (r: 0.466 p < 0.01). Conclusions: Most TURP surgical videos on YouTube are low quality. Higher educational quality videos with detailed explanation of the procedure are needed on this subject. We believe this study could be a guide for future high quality TURP videos.

Keywords

References

  1. Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, Ewing LL. The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J Urol. 1984; 132:474-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)49698-4
  2. Parsons JK. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: Epidemiology and Risk Factors. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep. 2010; 5:212-218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-010-0067-2
  3. McVary KT. BPH: epidemiology and comorbidities. Am J Manag Care. 2006; 12(5 Suppl):S122-8.
  4. https://www.baus.org.uk/_userfiles/pages/files/Museum/20%20-%20TURP.pdf
  5. Malaeb BS, Yu X, McBean AM, Elliott SP. National trends in surgical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the United States (2000-2008). Urology. 2012; 79:1111-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.084
  6. https://www.britannica.com/story/who-invented-the-internet.
  7. https://data.worldbank.org.
  8. Pugh CM, Watson A, Bell RH Jr, et al. Surgical education in the internet era. J Surg Res. 2009;156:177-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.03.021
  9. Friedl R, Höppler H, Ecard K, et al. Development and prospective evaluation of a multimedia teaching course on aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 54:1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-865871
  10. Pape-Koehler C, Immenroth M, Sauerland S, et al. Multimediabased training on Internet platforms improves surgical performance: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2013; 27:1737-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2672-y
  11. https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/
  12. Rapp AK, Healy MG, Charlton ME, et al. YouTube is the Most Frequently Used Educational Video Source for Surgical Preparation. J Surg Educ. 2016; 73:1072-1076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.04.024
  13. Mota P, Carvalho N, Carvalho-Dias E, et al. Video-Based Surgical Learning: Improving Trainee Education and Preparation for Surgery. J Surg Educ. 2018; 75:828-835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.09.027
  14. Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns. 2014; 96:395-403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027
  15. Morra S, Napolitano L, Collà Ruvolo C, et al. Could YouTube™ encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022; 94:285-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.3.285
  16. Celentano V, Smart N, McGrath J, et al. LAP-VEGaS Practice Guidelines for Reporting of Educational Videos in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Joint Trainers and Trainees Consensus Statement. Ann Surg. 2018; 268:920-926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002725
  17. Betschart P, Pratsinis M, Müllhaupt G, et al. Information on surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia on YouTube is highly biased and misleading. BJU Int. 2020; 125:595-601. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14971
  18. Yang K, Meng Y, Zhang K. Educational value of YouTube Surgical Videos of Thulium Laser Enucleation of The Prostate (ThuLEP): the quality assessment. Transl Androl Urol. 2021; 10:2848-2856. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-21-263
  19. Larouche M, Geoffrion R, Lazare D, et al. Mid-urethral slings on YouTube: quality information on the internet? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:903-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2908-1
  20. Loeb S, Reines K, Abu-Salha Y, et al. Quality of Bladder Cancer Information on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2021; 79:56-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.014
  21. Haslam RE, Seideman CA. Educational Value of YouTube Surgical Videos of Pediatric Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: A Qualitative Assessment. J Endourol. 2020; 34:1129-1133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0102
  22. Sahin Y, Paslanmaz F, Ulus I, et al. Quality and content analysis of female urethroplasty videos on YouTube. Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2023; 15:24-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/luts.12468

Metrics

Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.

PlumX Metrics

License

Copyright (c) 2023 the Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.