The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2021
A systematic review of facial plastic surgery simulation training models.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mohd Slim M A, Hurley R, Lechner M, Milner T D, Okhovat S
Аннотация
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.
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.