Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:10:02.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A systematic review of low-cost simulators in ENT surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2021

R Pankhania ,
T Pelly ,
H Bowyer ,
N Shanmugathas  and
A Wali
R Pankhania*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
T Pelly
Affiliation:
Department of General Surgery, St Helier Hospital, Carshalton, UK
H Bowyer
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopaedics, Homerton Hospital, London, UK
N Shanmugathas
Affiliation:
Department of Urology, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK
A Wali
Affiliation:
Department of Plastic Surgery, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Mr Rahul Pankhania, Department of ENT, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, GuildfordGU2 7XX, UK E-mail: rahul.pankhania@nhs.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Simulation training has become a key part of the surgical curriculum over recent years. Current trainees face significantly reduced operating time as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, alongside increased costs to surgical training, thus creating a need for low-cost simulation models.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed using multiple databases. Each model included was assessed for the ease and expense of its construction, as well as its validity and educational value.

Results

A total of 18 low-cost simulation models were identified, relating to otology, head and neck surgery, laryngeal surgery, rhinology, and tonsil surgery. In only four of these models (22.2 per cent) was an attempt made to demonstrate the educational impact of the model. Validation was rarely formally assessed.

Conclusion

More efforts are required to standardise validation methods and demonstrate the educational value of the available low-cost simulation models in otorhinolaryngology.

Keywords

OtorhinolaryngologyCOVID-19Education
Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 6 , June 2021 , pp. 486 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Mr R Pankhania takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Musbahi, O, Aydin, A, Al Omran, Y, Skilbeck, CJ, Ahmed, K. Current status of simulation in otolaryngology: a systematic review. J Surg Educ 2017;74:203–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chin, CJ, Chin, CA, Roth, K, Rotenberg, BW, Fung, K. Simulation-based otolaryngology – head and neck surgery boot camp: ‘how I do it’. J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:284–9010.1017/S0022215115003485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, ES, Kinshuck, AJ, Littley, N, Lau, A, Tandon, S, Lancaster, J. A high-fidelity, fully immersive simulation course to replicate ENT and head and neck emergencies. J Laryngol Otol 2019;133:115–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milburn, JA, Khera, G, Hornby, ST, Malone, PS, Fitzgerald, JE. Introduction, availability and role of simulation in surgical education and training: review of current evidence and recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training. Int J Surg 2012;10:393–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, WO, Wilmot, VV, Reddy, VM, Alderson, DJ. The realism and usefulness of the Voxel-Man TempoSurg and the Visible Ear Simulator. Bull R Coll Surg Engl 2015;97:66–910.1308/rcsbull.2015.97.2.66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Callaghan, J, Mohan, HM, Sharrock, A, Gokani, V, Fitzgerald, JE, Williams, AP et al. Cross-sectional study of the financial cost of training to the surgical trainee in the UK and Ireland. BMJ Open 2017;7:e018086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelly, T, Shanmugathas, N, Bowyer, H, Wali, A, Pankhania, R. Low-cost simulation models in urology: a systematic review of the literature. Cent European J Urol 2020;73:373–80Google ScholarPubMed
Li, MM, George, J. A systematic review of low-cost laparoscopic simulators. Surg Endosc 2017;31:38–4810.1007/s00464-016-4953-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gravante, G, Venditti, D. A systematic review on low-cost box models to achieve basic and advanced laparoscopic skills during modern surgical training. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2013;23:109–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malekzadeh, S, Hanna, G, Wilson, B, Pehlivanova, M, Milmoe, G. A model for training and evaluation of myringotomy and tube placement skills. Laryngoscope 2011;121:1410–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molin, N, Chiu, J, Liba, B, Isaacson, G. Low cost, easy-to-replicate myringotomy tube insertion simulation model. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020;131:10984710.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109847CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dedmon, MM, O'Connell, BP, Kozin, ED, Remenschneider, AK, Barber, SR, Lee, DJ et al. Development and validation of a modular endoscopic ear surgery skills trainer. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:1193–710.1097/MAO.0000000000001485CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiesa Estomba, CM, Melendez Garcia, JM, Hamdam Zavarce, MI, Betances Reinoso, FA. The Vigo grommet trainer. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2015;132:53–510.1016/j.anorl.2014.06.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owa, AO, Farrell, RW. Simple model for teaching myringotomy and aural ventilation tube insertion. J Laryngol Otol 1998;112:642–310.1017/S0022215100141325CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owa, AO, Gbejuade, HO, Giddings, C. A middle-ear simulator for practicing prosthesis placement for otosclerosis surgery using ward-based materials. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:490–210.1258/002221503321892361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathews, SB, Hetzler, DG, Hilsinger, RL Jr. Incus and stapes footplate simulator. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1614–1610.1097/00005537-199712000-00007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malekzadeh, S, Pfisterer, MJ, Wilson, B, Na, H, Steehler, MK. A novel low-cost sinus surgery task trainer. OTO Open 2011;145:530–3Google ScholarPubMed
Steehler, MK, Pfisterer, MJ, Na, H, Hesham, HN, Pehlivanova, M, Malekzadeh, S. Face, content, and construct validity of a low-cost sinus surgery task trainer. OTO Open 2012;146:504–9Google ScholarPubMed
Steehler, MK, Chu, EE, Na, H, Pfisterer, MJ, Hesham, HN, Malekzadeh, S. Teaching and assessing endoscopic sinus surgery skills on a validated low-cost task trainer. Laryngoscope 2013;123:841–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rinaldi, V, Costantino, A, Moffa, A, Baptista, P, Sabatino, L, Casale, M. “Barbed snore surgery” simulator: a low-cost surgical model. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;276:2345–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richtsmeier, WJ. Simulated Zenker's endoscopic staple-assisted esophagodiverticulostomy (ESED) surgery. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1230–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zambricki, EA, Bergeron, JL, DiRenzo, EE, Sung, CK. Phonomicrosurgery simulation: a low-cost teaching model using easily accessible materials. Laryngoscope 2016;126:2528–3310.1002/lary.25940CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holliday, MA, Bones, VM, Malekzadeh, S, Grant, NN. Low-cost modular phonosurgery training station: development and validation. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1409–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kavanagh, KR, Murray, N. A novel, low fidelity simulator for laryngotracheal reconstruction. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2019;125:212–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabrera-Muffly, C, Clary, MS, Abaza, M. A low-cost transcervical laryngeal injection trainer. Laryngoscope 2016;126:901–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bunting, H, Wilson, BM, Malloy, KM, Malekzadeh, S. A novel peritonsillar abscess simulator. Simul Healthc 2015;10:320–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Street, I, Beech, T, Jennings, C. The Birmingham trainer: a simulator for ligating the lower tonsillar pole. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:7910.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01143.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, SK, Jaiswal, V, Jones, NS. Nottingham tonsillectomy haemostasis simulator. Clin Otolaryngol 2007;32:143CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wasson, JD, De Zoysa, N, Stephens, J. Tissue-box tonsillar tie trainer. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34:175–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schout, BM, Hendrikx, AJ, Scheele, F, Bemelmans, BL, Scherpbier, AJ. Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc 2010;24:536–4610.1007/s00464-009-0634-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diederich, E, Mahnken, JD, Rigler, SK, Williamson, TL, Tarver, S, Sharpe, MR. The effect of model fidelity on learning outcomes of a simulation-based education program for central venous catheter insertion. Simul Healthc 2015;10:360–710.1097/SIH.0000000000000117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahad, S, Boehler, M, Schwind, CJ, Hassan, I. The effect of model fidelity on colonoscopic skills acquisition. A randomized controlled study. J Surg Educ 2013;70:522–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsumoto, ED, Hamstra, SJ, Radomski, SB, Cusimano, MD. The effect of bench model fidelity on endourological skills: a randomized controlled study. J Urol 2002;167:1243–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massoth, C, Roder, H, Ohlenburg, H, Hessler, M, Zarbock, A, Popping, DM et al. High-fidelity is not superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students. BMC Med Educ 2019;19:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar