Author(s)
Nathan R. Lindquist, MD
Matthew Leach, MD
Matthew Simpson, BS
Jastin Antisdel, MD, FACS
Affiliation(s)
California Head & Neck Specialists
Abstract:
INTRODUCTION: In the realm of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), a multitude of simulator systems are used as training tools for residents preparing to enter the operating room. These include human cadavers, virtual reality, realistic anatomic models, and low-cost gelatin molds. While these models have been validated and evaluated as independent tools for surgical trainees, no study has directly compared these different systems.OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the utility of the anatomic (high-fidelity) and gelatin (low-fidelity) molds as compared to traditional (no training device) for trainees acquiring basic ESS skills.METHODS: 33 first-year medical students were randomized to three groups and taught basic sinus anatomy and instrumentation. Eleven received additional training with either the high-fidelity or low-fidelity trainer. Afterwards, these groups used cadaveric specimens to demonstrate their anatomic knowledge and surgical skills. These sessions were recorded and graded on a Likert-type scale by a blinded expert. ANOVA tested differences among the mean graded scores and times for the three training groups.RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the three study groups with regards to identification of anatomy, endoscopic competency, completion of basic tasks (exposure of the middle meatus, injections, or foreign body removal), or time to completion.CONCLUSIONS: While previous studies have validated simulator training systems, our comparison yielded no statistical difference between the different methods. Simulation has been shown to improved trainee comfort as reported in feedback surveys, however our data suggest the continued important of non-simulator, real patient encounters for developing ESS skills for surgical trainees.