Authors' objectives:

To assess whether skills acquired via simulation-based training transfer to the operative setting.

Authors' results and conclusions: A total of 12 randomised controlled trials and two non-randomised comparative studies were included in this review. The review looked at simulation as a concept, and as such included studies with various training techniques in the surgical setting. There were differences in indications, simulation-based training methods, training times, and the amount of guidance and feedback provided to trainees. In most cases, simulation-based training was an add-on to normal surgical training programs. Only one study compared simulation-based training with current training methods (patient-based training). For laparoscopic cholecystectomy, participants who received simulation-based training prior to conducting patient-based assessment generally performed better than their counterparts who did not have this training. This improvement was not universal for all the parameters measured, but the untrained group never outperformed the trained group. Trained groups generally made fewer errors, and had less instances of supervising surgeon takeover than participants who did not have the training. For colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, simulation-based training prior to patient-based assessment generally appeared to provide participants some advantage over their untrained controls, particularly during the initial stages of learning. For catheter-based intervention for occlusive vascular disease and TEP hernia repair, simulation-based training appeared to show benefits for participants when later conducting patient-based assessment. There were no differences in performance between endoscopic sinus surgery simulator-trained residents compared with controls when performing endoscopic sinus surgery. The study that compared patient-based training with simulation-based training for colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy found that participants who received training in the assessment procedure exhibited better performance than those who had trained exclusively on a simulator without any mentoring or supervision.

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 transferability of skills acquired via simulation-based training to the surgical setting: Evidence rating The evidence-base in this review is rated as average. The studies included were of variable quality, and did not have comparable simulation-based methods for the same indications, resulting in an inability to draw solid conclusions.

Authors' methods: Review

Project Status: Completed

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

Year Published: 2007

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)