A Systematic Review of Simulation-Based Training Tools in Plastic Surgery

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Diego Agustín Abelleyra Lastoria , Sehrish Rehman , Farah Ahmed , Sara Jasionowska , Andrej Salibi , Naveen Cavale , Prokar Dasgupta , Abdullatif Aydin
{"title":"A Systematic Review of Simulation-Based Training Tools in Plastic Surgery","authors":"Diego Agustín Abelleyra Lastoria ,&nbsp;Sehrish Rehman ,&nbsp;Farah Ahmed ,&nbsp;Sara Jasionowska ,&nbsp;Andrej Salibi ,&nbsp;Naveen Cavale ,&nbsp;Prokar Dasgupta ,&nbsp;Abdullatif Aydin","doi":"10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.103320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The recent shift from traditional surgical teaching to the incorporation of simulation training in plastic surgery has resulted in the development of a variety of simulation models and tools. We aimed to assess the validity and establish the effectiveness of all currently available simulators and tools for plastic surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The PRISMA 2020 checklist was followed. The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021231546). Published and unpublished literature databases were searched to the 29<sup>th</sup> of October 2023. Each model was appraised in accordance with the Messick validity framework, and a rating was given for each section. To determine the effectiveness of each model, the McGaghie model of translational outcomes was used.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>On screening 1794 articles, 116 were identified to discuss validity and effectiveness of simulation models in plastic surgery. These were hand surgery (6 studies), breast surgery (12 studies), facial surgery (25 studies), cleft lip and palate surgery (29 studies), rhinoplasty (4 studies), hair transplant surgery (1 study), surgery for burns (10 studies), and general skills in plastic surgery (29 studies). Only 1 model achieved an effectiveness level &gt; 3, and no model had a rating &gt; 2 in all aspects of the Messick validity framework.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There are limited models enabling the transfer of skills to clinical practice. No models achieved reductions in surgical complications or costs. There must be more validity studies conducted using updated validity frameworks, with an increased emphasis on the applicability of these simulators to improve patient outcomes and surgical technique. More training tools evaluating both technical and non-technical surgical skills are recommended.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Education","volume":"82 1","pages":"Article 103320"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931720424004689","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

The recent shift from traditional surgical teaching to the incorporation of simulation training in plastic surgery has resulted in the development of a variety of simulation models and tools. We aimed to assess the validity and establish the effectiveness of all currently available simulators and tools for plastic surgery.

Design

Systematic review.

Methods

The PRISMA 2020 checklist was followed. The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021231546). Published and unpublished literature databases were searched to the 29th of October 2023. Each model was appraised in accordance with the Messick validity framework, and a rating was given for each section. To determine the effectiveness of each model, the McGaghie model of translational outcomes was used.

Results

On screening 1794 articles, 116 were identified to discuss validity and effectiveness of simulation models in plastic surgery. These were hand surgery (6 studies), breast surgery (12 studies), facial surgery (25 studies), cleft lip and palate surgery (29 studies), rhinoplasty (4 studies), hair transplant surgery (1 study), surgery for burns (10 studies), and general skills in plastic surgery (29 studies). Only 1 model achieved an effectiveness level > 3, and no model had a rating > 2 in all aspects of the Messick validity framework.

Conclusion

There are limited models enabling the transfer of skills to clinical practice. No models achieved reductions in surgical complications or costs. There must be more validity studies conducted using updated validity frameworks, with an increased emphasis on the applicability of these simulators to improve patient outcomes and surgical technique. More training tools evaluating both technical and non-technical surgical skills are recommended.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Surgical Education
Journal of Surgical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
261
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Education (JSE) is dedicated to advancing the field of surgical education through original research. The journal publishes research articles in all surgical disciplines on topics relative to the education of surgical students, residents, and fellows, as well as practicing surgeons. Our readers look to JSE for timely, innovative research findings from the international surgical education community. As the official journal of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS), JSE publishes the proceedings of the annual APDS meeting held during Surgery Education Week.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信