Abelleyra Lastoria Diego Agustín, Rehman Sehrish, Ahmed Farah, Jasionowska Sara, Salibi Andrej, Cavale Naveen, Dasgupta Prokar, Aydin Abdullatif
St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
J Surg Educ. 2025 Jan;82(1):103320. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.103320. Epub 2024 Nov 29.
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.
Systematic review.
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 Published and unpublished literature databases were searched to the 29 of October 2023.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.
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.
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.
从传统外科教学向整形外科模拟训练的转变促使了各种模拟模型和工具的发展。我们旨在评估所有当前可用的整形外科模拟器和工具的有效性,并确定其效果。
系统评价。
遵循PRISMA 2020清单。该评价方案已在PROSPERO(CRD42021231546)中进行前瞻性注册。检索已发表和未发表的文献数据库至2023年10月29日。根据梅西克有效性框架对每个模型进行评估,并对每个部分给出评分。为确定每个模型的效果,使用了麦加希转化结果模型。
在筛选的1794篇文章中,有116篇被确定讨论了整形外科模拟模型的有效性和效果。这些研究涉及手部手术(6项研究)、乳房手术(12项研究)、面部手术(25项研究)、唇腭裂手术(29项研究)、隆鼻手术(4项研究)、植发手术(1项研究)、烧伤手术(10项研究)以及整形外科一般技能(29项研究)。只有1个模型的效果水平>3,并且在梅西克有效性框架的所有方面没有模型的评分>2。
能够将技能转化为临床实践的模型有限。没有模型能降低手术并发症或成本。必须使用更新的有效性框架进行更多的有效性研究,更加注重这些模拟器对改善患者预后和手术技术的适用性。建议更多地使用评估技术和非技术手术技能的训练工具。