Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:48:40.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A systematic review of facial plastic surgery simulation training models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

M A Mohd Slim Open the ORCID record for M A Mohd Slim [Opens in a new window] ,
R Hurley ,
M Lechner ,
T D Milner  and
S Okhovat
M A Mohd Slim*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
R Hurley
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
M Lechner
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford School of Medicine, California, USA
T D Milner
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
S Okhovat
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia Division of Otolaryngology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Mohd Afiq Mohd Slim, Department of ENT, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Rd, GlasgowG51 4TF, Scotland, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to a need for alternative teaching methods in facial plastics. This systematic review aimed to identify facial plastics simulation models, and assess their validity and efficacy as training tools.

Methods

Literature searches were performed. The Beckman scale was used for validity. The McGaghie Modified Translational Outcomes of Simulation-Based Mastery Learning score was used to evaluate effectiveness.

Results

Overall, 29 studies were selected. These simulated local skin flaps (n = 9), microtia frameworks (n = 5), pinnaplasty (n = 1), facial nerve anastomosis (n = 1), oculoplastic procedures (n = 5), and endoscopic septoplasty and septorhinoplasty simulators (n = 10). Of these models, 14 were deemed to be high-fidelity, 13 low-fidelity and 2 mixed-fidelity. None of the studies published common outcome measures.

Conclusion

Simulators in facial plastic surgical training are important. These models may have some training benefits, but most could benefit from further assessment of validity.

Keywords

LearningEducational ModelsSurgeonsCOVID-19Simulation TrainingFeedbackCurriculum
Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 136 , Issue 3 , March 2022 , pp. 197 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr M A Mohd Slim takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

European Commission. Working Conditions - Working Time Directive. In: https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=205 [27 May 2020]Google Scholar
ENT UK. A Graduated Return to Elective ENT Within the COVID-19 Pandemic. In: https://www.entuk.org/sites/default/files/A%20Graduated%20Return%20to%20Elective%20ENT%20Within%20the%20COVID-19%20Pandemic.pdf [27 May 2020]Google Scholar
Søreide, K, Hallet, J, Matthews, JB, Schnitzbauer, AA, Line, PD, Lai, PBS et al. Immediate and long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delivery of surgical services. Br J Surg 2020;107:1250–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasan, A, Pozzi, M, Hamilton, JR. New surgical procedures: can we minimise the learning curve? BMJ 2000;320:171–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopper, AN, Jamison, MH, Lewis, WG. Learning curves in surgical practice. Postgrad Med J 2007;83:777–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeolekar, A, Qadri, H. The learning curve in surgical practice and its applicability to rhinoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;70:38–4210.1007/s12070-017-1199-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckman, TJ, Cook, DA, Mandrekar, JN. What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching? J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:1159–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGaghie, WC, Issenberg, SB, Barsuk, JH, Wayne, DB. A critical review of simulation-based mastery learning with translational outcomes. Med Educ 2014;48:375–85CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ker, J, Bradley, P. Simulation in medical education. In: Swanwick, T, eds. Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013;175–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Joanna Brigg's Institute. Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (non-randomized experimental studies). In: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Quasi-Experimental_Appraisal_Tool2017_0.pdf [01 July 2021]Google Scholar
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denadai, R, Saad-Hossne, R, Raposo-Amaral, CE. Simulation-based rhomboid flap skills training during medical education: comparing low- and high-fidelity bench models. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:2134–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chawdhary, G, Herdman, R. Pastry flaps for facial plastics. Clin Otolaryngol 2015;40:509–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sillitoe, AT, Platt, A. The Z-plasty simulator. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004;86:304–5Google ScholarPubMed
Kite, AC, Yacoe, M, Rhodes, JL. The use of a novel local flap trainer in plastic surgery education. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6:e1786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denadai, R, Kirylko, L. Teaching basic plastic surgical skills on an alternative synthetic bench model. Aesthet Surg J 2013;33:458–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altinyazar, HC, Hosnuter, M, Unalacak, M, Koca, R, Babucçu, O. A training model for cutaneous surgery. Dermatol Surg 2003;29:1122–4Google ScholarPubMed
Kuwahara, RT, Rasberry, R. Pig head model for practice cutaneous surgery. Dermatol Surg 2000;26:401–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loh, CY, Athanassopoulos, T. Understanding Z plasties - deepening of webspace on chicken foot model. Hand Surg 2014;19:323–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camelo-Nunes, JM, Hiratsuka, J, Yoshida, MM, Beltrani-Filho, CA, Oliveira, LS, Nagae, AC. Ox tongue: an alternative model for surgical training. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116:352–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agrawal, K. Bovine cartilage: a near perfect training tool for carving ear cartilage framework. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2015;52:758–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdogan, B, Morioka, D, Hamada, T, Kusano, T, Win, KM. Use of a plastic eraser for ear reconstruction training. Indian J Plast Surg 2018;51:66–9Google ScholarPubMed
Murabit, A, Anzarut, A, Kasrai, L, Fisher, D, Wilkes, G. Teaching ear reconstruction using an alloplastic carving model. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21:1719–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shin, HS, Hong, SC. A porcine rib cartilage model for practicing ear-framework fabrication. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:1756–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vadodaria, S, Mowatt, D, Giblin, V, Gault, D. Mastering ear cartilage sculpture: the vegetarian option. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116:2043–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uygur, S, Ozturk, C, Kwiecien, G, Siemionow, MZ. Sheep head model for plastic surgery training. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132:895–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zou, C, Wang, JQ, Guo, X, Wang, TL. Pig eyelid as a teaching model for severe ptosis repair. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;28:472–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfaff, AJ. Pig eyelid as a teaching model for eyelid margin repair. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;20:383–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kersey, TL. Split pig head as a teaching model for basic oculoplastic procedures. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;25:253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ianacone, DC, Gnadt, BJ, Isaacson, G. Ex vivo ovine model for head and neck surgical simulation. Am J Otolaryngol 2016;37:272–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oh, CJ, Tripathi, PB, Gu, JT, Borden, P, Wong, BJ. Development and evaluation of rhinoplasty spreader graft suture simulator for novice surgeons. Laryngoscope 2019;129:344–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zammit, D, Safran, T, Ponnudurai, N, Jaberi, M, Chen, L, Noel, G et al. Step-specific simulation: the utility of 3D printing for the fabrication of a low-cost, learning needs-based rhinoplasty simulator. Aesthet Surg J 2020;40:340–5Google ScholarPubMed
Zabaneh, G, Lederer, R, Grosvenor, A, Wilkes, G. Rhinoplasty: a hands-on training module. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:952–410.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b17bf5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dini, GM, Gonella, HA, Fregadolli, L, Nunes, B, Gozzano, R. A new animal model for training rhinoplasty [in Portguese]. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2012;27:201–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinfeld, AB. Chicken sternal cartilage for simulated septal cartilage graft carving: a rhinoplasty educational model. Aesthet Surg J 2010;30:810–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dini, GM, Gonella, HA, Fregadolli, L, Nunes, B, Gozzano, R. Training rhinoseptoplasty, sinusectomy, and turbinectomy in an animal model. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;130:224–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Touska, P, Awad, Z, Tolley, NS. Suitability of the ovine model for simulation training in rhinology. Laryngoscope 2013;123:1598–601CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallmann, LB, Piltcher, OB, Isolan, GR. The lamb's head as a model for surgical skills development in endonasal surgery. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2016;77:466–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Q, Oluwole, M, Tan, L, White, PS. An animal model for training in endoscopic nasal and sinus surgery. J Laryngol Otol 1996;110:425–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AlReefi, MA, Nguyen, LH, Mongeau, LG, Haq, BU, Boyanapalli, S, Hafeez, N et al. Development and validation of a septoplasty training model using 3-dimensional printing technology. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2017;7:399–404CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, SS, Sarker, SK. Simulation in surgery: a review. Scott Med J 2011;56:104–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaharan, S, Neary, P. Evaluation of surgical training in the era of simulation. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014;6:436–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaba, DM. The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13( suppl 1):2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munshi, F, Lababidi, H, Alyousef, S. Low- versus high-fidelity simulations in teaching and assessing clinical skills. J Taibah Univ Medical Sci 2015;10:12–15Google Scholar
Lateef, F. Simulation-based learning: just like the real thing. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2010;3:348–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilkenny, C, Browne, WJ, Cuthill, IC, Emerson, M, Altman, DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010;8:1000412CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martić-Kehl, MI, Schibli, R, Schubiger, PA. Can animal data predict human outcome? Problems and pitfalls of translational animal research. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39:1492–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rall, M, Dieckmann, P. Simulation and patient safety: the use of simulation to enhance patient safety on a systems level. Curr Anaesth Crit Care 2005;16:273–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar