A systematic review of facial plastic surgery simulation training models

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.

Simulation-based teaching: an effective modality for providing UK foundation doctors with core ENT skills training

“…Although remote learning has increased, 76 per cent of students nationally have reported that online learning cannot replace clinical teaching involving patient contact. 17 In order to ensure trainees achieve competency in the necessary clinical skills, simulation-based training can be an effective teaching supplement, 18 as evidenced by data from our study. Simulation-based ‘bootcamp’ courses for ENT are already being trialled in the UK, USA and Canada for inducting senior ENT trainees.…”

Surgical Training Simulators for Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

“…35,38 Most authors focused on the development and qualities of the model. 40 There is a need for objective evaluation of outcomes from simulator training that can provide strong evidence to support integration of training with high-validity simulators into practice. 36,39,41 We must understand how skills from simulator training translate to performance in the operating room with real patients as the end goal.…”

“…35,39,41 The McGaghie Modified Translational Outcomes of Simulation-Based Master Learning score has also been used to measure simulator effectiveness in terms of trainee satisfaction, performance, clinical behavior, patient outcomes, and systemic level effects. 40 Overall, despite the limited objective outcomes, there is a universal interest and confidence in the value of simulators across OHNS, 34 including rhinoplasty training. Understanding how rhinoplasty simulators impact patient outcomes and satisfaction is another important yet difficult issue to address.…”

“…Rhinoplasty simulators would also be useful for standardized, objective assessment of techniques. 40 Given the limited exposure to surgery and the field of OHNS in medical school, 42 rhinoplasty simulators could spark an interest and build a foundation of the field early in training. For example, augmented reality simulators could project anatomy onto a physical model to visualize and facilitate learning of internal nasal anatomy.…”

“…This is a theme common with facial plastic surgery 40 and OHNS 37 simulator literature, and the qualitative nature of results allows the data to be subject to bias. 40 We also do not know the direct impact and utility of a majority of these simulators in rhinoplasty education and skill acquisition of residents. Though many rhinoplasty simulators aim to mimic human nasal anatomy, they are not perfect.…”