Authors' objectives:

The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical simulators, in comparison to each other, no training, or other methods of surgical training, on the basis of a systematic assessment of the literature.

Authors' results and conclusions: Thirty-one RCTs with 806 participants were able to be included, although the quality of the RCTs was often poor. Computer simulation generally showed better results than no training at all (or physical trainer/model training in one RCT), but was not convincingly superior to standard training (such as surgical drills) or video simulation (particularly when assessed by operative performance). Video simulation did not show better results than groups with no training at all, and there were not enough data to determine if video simulation was better than standard training or the use of models. Model simulation may have been better than standard training, and cadaver training may have been better than model training. None of the RCTs made a comparison between computer simulation and model training.

Authors' recommendations: On the basis of the evidence presented in this systematic review, the ASERNIP-S Review Group agreed on the following classifications and recommendations concerning the safety and efficacy of surgical simulation: Evidence rating Poor - on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence because most of the RCTs were flawed and outcomes were often not comparable across studies. Safety Not applicable for this review. Efficacy Efficacy cannot be determined. The inconclusive outcome of this review may be related to small sample sizes and the validity and reliability of outcome measurements. Clinical and research recommendations It was recommended that further research must be done in the context of training to particular performance standards. Ideally studies should be multicentre trials with standardised approaches, with sufficient participants. The skills being evaluated should be part of a standard surgical skills training course, not just stand-alone technical skills. Additionally, once efficacy has been determined economic analyses could be attempted.

Authors' methods: Systematic Review

Project Status: Completed

URL for project: http://www.surgeons.org/asernip-s

Year Published: 2006

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: Australia

Organisation Name: Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical

Contact Address: ASERNIP-S 24 King William Street, Kent Town SA 5067 Australia Tel: +61 8 8219 0900

Contact Name: racs.asernip@surgeons.org

Contact Email: racs.asernip@surgeons.org

Copyright: Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures - Surgical (ASERNIP-S)