Current Evidence for Simulation-Based Training and Assessment of Myringotomy and Ventilation Tube Insertion: A Systematic Review

Surgical Training Simulators for Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Rhinoplasty training currently follows an apprenticeship model that is largely observational. Trainees have limited experience in performing maneuvers of this complex surgery. Rhinoplasty simulators can address this issue by providing trainees with the opportunity to gain surgical simulator experience that could improve technical competences in the operating room. This review amalgamates the collective understanding of rhinoplasty simulators described to date. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, PubMed, OVID Embase, OVID Medline, and Web of Science databases were all searched for original research on surgical simulators for rhinoplasty education and reviewed by independent reviewers. Articles underwent title and abstract screening, and then relevant articles underwent full-text review to extract simulator data. Seventeen studies, published between 1984 and 2021, were included for final analysis. Study participant numbers ranged from 4 to 24, and included staff surgeons, fellows, residents (postgraduate year 1-6), and medical students. Cadaveric surgical simulators comprised eight studies, of which three were with human cadavers, one study was a live animal simulator, two were virtual simulators, and six were three-dimensional (3D) models. Both animal and human-based simulators increased the confidence of trainees significantly. Significant improvement in various aspects of rhinoplasty knowledge occurred with implementation of a 3D-printed model in rhinoplasty education. Rhinoplasty simulators are limited by a lack of an automated method of evaluation and a large reliance on feedback from experienced rhinoplasty surgeons. Rhinoplasty simulators have the potential to provide trainees with the opportunity for hands-on training to improve skill and develop competencies without putting patients in harm's way. Current literature on rhinoplasty simulators largely focuses on simulator development, with few simulators being validated and assessed for utility. For wider implementation and acceptance, further refinement of simulators, validation, and assessment of outcomes is required.

Gathering validity evidence for a 3D-printed simulator for training of myringotomy and ventilation tube insertion

Objectives

This study aimed to gather validity evidence according to Messick's framework for a novel 3D-printed simulator for myringotomy with ventilation tube insertion for use in technical skills training of otorhinolaryngology (ORL) residents.

Methods

The study included 15 junior ORL residents (trainees) and 13 experienced teaching otolaryngologists (experts). Experts and trainees first received an identically structured introduction to the procedure, simulator, and simulation setup. Five procedures performed by each participant were video-recorded and ordered randomly for blinded rating by two independent raters. The rating tools used were a global rating scale (GBRS) and a task-specific checklist. Validity evidence was collected according to Messick's framework. Differences in time consumption and performance scores were analyzed. Finally, a pass/fail standard was established using the contrasting groups' method.

Results

Trainees used significantly more time per procedure (109 s, 95% CI: 99-120) than experts (82 s, 95% CI: 71-93; p < .001). Adjusted for repetition and rater leniency, experts achieved an average GBRS score of 18.8 (95% CI: 18.3-19.2) out of 20 points, whereas trainees achieved an average of 17.1 points (95% CI: 16.6-17.5; p < .001). In contrast to the task-specific checklist, the GBRS score discriminated between repetition number and participant experience. The pass/fail standard for the GBRS was established at 18.4 points.

Conclusion

We established educational validity evidence for a novel 3D-printed model for simulation-based training of ventilation tube insertion and established a reliable pass/fail standard.

Level of Evidence

1b.

Simulation Versus Written Fall Prevention Education in Older Hospitalized Adults: A Randomized Controlled Study

Using a randomized controlled, non-blinded, two-group design, differences in fall risk assessment, post-discharge sustainable fall risk changes, fall events and re-hospitalization were examined in 77 older adults who received a simulation (n = 36) or written (n = 41) education intervention. Between-group differences and changes in pre- versus post-fall risk assessment scores were examined using Pearson's chi-square, Wilcoxon rank sum or Fisher's exact tests (categorical variables) and two-sample t-tests (continuous variables). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in demographic characteristics. Patients who received simulation education had higher fall risk post-assessment scores than the written education group, p = .022. Change in fall risk assessment scores (post-vs.-pre; 95% confidence intervals) were higher in the simulation group compared to the written education group, 1.43 (0.37, 2.50), p = .009. At each post-discharge assessment, fall events were numerically fewer but not significantly different among simulation and education group participants. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in re-hospitalization.

A Systematic Review of Simulation-Based Training in Vascular Surgery

Introduction

Recent advancements in surgical technology, reduced working hours, and training opportunities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic have led to an increase in simulation-based training. Furthermore, a rise in endovascular procedures has led to a requirement for high-fidelity simulators that offer comprehensive feedback. This review aims to identify vascular surgery simulation models and assess their validity and levels of effectiveness (LoE) for each model in order to successfully implement them into current training curricula.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were searched on January 1, 2021, for full-text English studies on vascular surgery simulators. Eligible articles were given validity ratings based on Messick’s modern concept of validity alongside an LoE score according to McGaghie’s translational outcomes.

Results

Overall 76 eligible articles validated 34 vascular surgery simulators and training courses for open and endovascular procedures. High validity ratings were achieved across studies for: content (35), response processes (12), the internal structure (5), relations to other variables (57), and consequences (2). Only seven studies achieved an LoE greater than 3/5. Overall, ANGIO Mentor was the most highly validated and effective simulator and was the only simulator to achieve an LoE of 5/5.

Conclusions

Simulation-based training in vascular surgery is a continuously developing field with exciting future prospects, demonstrated by the vast number of models and training courses. To effectively integrate simulation models into current vascular surgery curricula and assessments, there is a need for studies to look at trainee skill retention over a longer period of time. A more detailed discussion on cost-effectiveness is also needed.