Cadaveric simulation: a review of reviews

Abstract

Background Traditional surgical training, largely based on the Halstedian model Bsee one, do one, teach one^is not as effective in the era of working time restrictions and elaborate shiftpatterns. As a result, contemporary surgeons turned to educational methods outside the operating theatre such as simulation. Cadavers are high fidelity models but their use has ethical and cost implications and their availability may be limited. In this review, we explore the role of cadaveric simulation in modern surgical education. Methods All the Evidence-Based Medicine databases were searched for relevant reviews. The resulting studies were assessed for inclusion to this review, according to predetermined criteria. Data extraction was performed using a custom-made spreadsheet, and the quality of included reviews was assessed using a validated scoring system (AMSTAR). Results The literature review yielded 33 systematic reviews; five of which matched the inclusion criteria and were included in this review of reviews. Cadaveric simulation was found to have good face (subjective assessment of usefulness) and content validity (whether a specific element adds or retracts to the educational value) while trainees improved their surgical skills after practicing on cadavers. However, concerns have been raised about ethical issues, high cost and availability. Conclusion Cadavers are an effective medium for surgical teaching, and it may be appropriate for them to be used whenever surrounding conditions such cost and availability allow. Further research is required to provide evidence on whether there is equivalence between cadavers and other educational media which may not bear the same shortcomings.

Cadaveric Simulation Training in Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review

“…Simulation technology has been applied in many surgical disciplines as an adjunct to clinical training, using a variety of component task trainers, animal tissue-based simulators, and computer-aided simulation models (Friedl et al, 2002;Gallagher et al, 2004;Aggarwal et al, 2006;Chu et al, 2012;Trehan et al, 2014;Liu et al, 2015;Valdis et al, 2015Valdis et al, , 2016Mafeld et al, 2017;Korzeniowski et al, 2018;Ruikar et al, 2018;Patel et al, 2019). Cadaveric simulation has likewise been utilized in several non-thoracic specialties, with varying degrees of sophistication, whole body or component parts, and on occasion in combination with another model (Jackson et al, 2003;Güvençer et al, 2007;Ghanem et al, 2013;Carey et al, 2014;Ahmed et al, 2015;Benet et al, 2015;Egle et al, 2015;Camp et al, 2016;Sharma et al, 2016;Burns et al, 2017;Robinson et al, 2017;Willaert et al, 2018;Yiasemidou et al, 2018;Zada et al, 2018).…”

Medical Innovation Taking Form: 3D Printing at The Ottawa Hospital

“…For instance, 2D images fall short in engendering an understanding of depth, dimension, or scale amongst learners. While considered a valuable learning resource, cadaveric simulation is limited by high cost, lack of availability, and ethical issues (13). Adjunctive use of 3D-printed educational models in medical education can help address these limitations and optimize anatomical learning.…”

Design, Development, and Validation of a High-Fidelity “Ganglion Cyst” Model for Cadaveric Hand Surgery Training

“…5 Cadaveric simulation has been found to have a good face and content validity and allows for trainees to acquire surgical skills by practicing on cadavers. 6 These cadaver models do provide the ideal environment for surgical training in a safe and structured environment. 7 A sebaceous cyst model has been described for pigs trotters.…”