Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-pn7tm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T22:00:51.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulators in endoscopic ear surgery: a systematic review of models, validation and educational utility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2025

Georgia Riane Halliday Open the ORCID record for Georgia Riane Halliday [Opens in a new window] ,
Peter Sudworth ,
Paul R. Counter  and
Harry Tustin
Georgia Riane Halliday*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK
Peter Sudworth
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK
Paul R. Counter
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK
Harry Tustin
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK
*
Corresponding author: Georgia Riane Halliday; Email: georgia.halliday@nhs.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate physical simulation models for endoscopic ear surgery including model types, validation methodology and educational outcomes.

Methods

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses compliant search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was conducted to June 2025. Studies describing physical endoscopic ear surgery simulators with reported validation or educational outcomes were included.

Results

Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. Simulators comprised cadaveric animal heads, synthetic task trainers and single- and multi-material three-dimensional-printed models. Face validity was consistently high. Construct validity, assessed using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores or timed tasks, was demonstrated in five studies. Content validity was reported in three studies. No study evaluated transfer validity. Educational outcomes included improvements in confidence, anatomical knowledge and task completion time.

Conclusion

Physical endoscopic ear surgery simulators show strong face validity and emerging construct validity, but evidence is limited by small, single-centre studies and methodological variability. Standardised validation and assessment of clinical transfer are needed to support integration into training pathways.

Keywords

ear, middleendoscopyeducation, medical, graduatehigh fidelity simulation trainingotorhinolaryngologic surgical proceduressystematic review

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 140 , Issue 2 , February 2026 , pp. 115 - 122
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Georgia R. Halliday takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Presutti, L, Gioacchini, FM, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Villari, D, Marchioni, D. Results of endoscopic middle ear surgery for cholesteatoma treatment: a systematic review. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2014;34:153–7Google ScholarPubMed
Li, B, Zhou, L, Wang, M, Wang, Y, Zou, J. Endoscopic versus microscopic surgery for treatment of middle ear cholesteatoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Otolaryngol 2021;42:102451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guy, J, Muzaffar, J, Coulson, C. Comparison of microscopic and endoscopic views in cadaveric ears. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;277:1655–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilhelm, D, Reiser, S, Kohn, N, Witte, M, Leiner, U, Mühlbach, L, et al. Comparative evaluation of HD 2D/3D laparoscopic monitors and benchmarking to a theoretically ideal 3D pseudodisplay: even well-experienced laparoscopists perform better with 3D. Surg Endosc 2014;28:2387–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucidi, D, Fernandez, IJ, Botti, C, Amorosa, L, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Villari, D, et al. Does microscopic experience influence learning curve in endoscopic ear surgery? A multicentric study. Auris Nasus Larynx 2021;48:50–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacCallum, W. William Stewart Halsted. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1930Google Scholar
Anschuetz, L, Bonali, M, Ghirelli, M, Mattioli, F, Villari, D, Caversaccio, M, et al. An ovine model for exclusive endoscopic ear surgery. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;143:247–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, IJ, Bonali, M, Yacoub, A, Ghirelli, M, Fermi, M, Presutti, L, et al. Training model for salvage procedures in endoscopic stapes surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021;278:987–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwinter, A, Chayaopas, N, Ma, A, James, AL. Use of a caprine model for simulation and training of endoscopic ear surgery. J Int Adv Otol 2023;19:93–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaidi, A, Khan, MM, Parab, SR. The goat model for exclusive two-handed endoscopic middle ear surgery training: a novel technique. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;71:1478–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molinari, G, Emiliani, N, Cercenelli, L, Bortolani, B, D’Azzeo, R, Burato, A, et al. A novel 3D-printed multi-material simulator for endoscopic stapes surgery: the “3D Stapes Trainer”. Laryngoscope 2025;135:3356–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, LJ, Meehl, PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 1955;52:281–302CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haynes, S, Richard, DCS, Kubany, ES. Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 1995;7:238–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 2007;21:244–7CrossRefGoogle 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;38:1193–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, MM, Patel, N, Parab, SR, Ingale, M, Shinde, V. Elevating expertise: a comprehensive guide to two-handed endoscopic myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement training. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2025;77:1341–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narendrakumar, V. Training in endoscopic ear surgery using the papaya petiole. J Laryngol Otol 2021;135:648–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denton, O, Brahmabhatt, P, Ahmed, J, Sanu, A. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional endoscopes in anatomical orientation of the middle ear and in simulated surgical tasks. J Laryngol Otol 2022;136:141–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barber, SR, Kozin, ED, Dedmon, M, Lin, BM, Lee, K, Sinha, S, et al. 3D-printed pediatric endoscopic ear surgery simulator for surgical training. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016;90:113–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenks, CM, Patel, V, Bennett, B, Dunham, B, Devine, CM. Development of a 3-dimensional middle ear model to teach anatomy and endoscopic ear surgical skills. OTO Open 2021;5:2473974X211046598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stramiello, JA, Wong, SJ, Good, R, Tor, A, Ryan, J, Carvalho, D. Validation of a three-dimensional printed pediatric middle ear model for endoscopic surgery training. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2022;7:2133–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rançon, S, Prebot, J, Denoyelle, F, Khonsari, RH, Simon, F. Validation of a 3D-printed multimaterial transcanal tympanoplasty simulator for endoscopic ear surgery. Otol Neurotol 2025;46:e323–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okhovat, S, Milner, TD, Iyer, A. Feasibility of ovine and synthetic temporal bone models for simulation training in endoscopic ear surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2019;133:966–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Nortwick, SS, Lendvay, TS, Jensen, AR, Wright, AS, Horvath, KD, Kim, S. Methodologies for establishing validity in surgical simulation studies. Surgery 2010;147:622–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, DA, Brydges, R, Zendejas, B, Hamstra, SJ, Hatala, R. Technology-enhanced simulation to assess health professionals: a systematic review of validity evidence, research methods, and reporting quality. Acad Med 2013;88:872–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkpatrick, D. Great ideas revisited: techniques for evaluating training programs—revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Train Dev 1996;50:54–9Google Scholar
CV, Edmond Jr. Impact of the endoscopic sinus surgical simulator on operating room performance. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1148–58Google Scholar
Gawęcki, W, Węgrzyniak, M, Mickiewicz, P, Gawłowska, MB, Talar, M, Wierzbicka, M. The impact of virtual reality training on the quality of real antromastoidectomy performance. J Clin Med 2020;9:3197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, DA, Cook, DA, Beckman, TJ, Levine, RB, Kern, DE, Wright, SM. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA 2007;298:1002–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, JA, Regehr, G, Reznick, R, MacRae, H, Murnaghan, J, Hutchison, C, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997;84:273–8Google ScholarPubMed
Youner, ER, Chillakuru, YR, Xu, H, Dedmon, M, Labadie, R, Djalilian, H, et al. Content validity of a high-fidelity surgical middle ear simulator: a randomized prospective international multicenter trial. Otol Neurotol 2023;44:903–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed