Search

Objective: Otoscopy is a key clinical examination used by multiple healthcare providers but training and testing of otoscopy skills remain largely uninvestigated. Simulator-based assessment of otoscopy skills exists, but evidence on its validity is scarce. In this study, we explored automated assessment and performance metrics of an otoscopy simulator through collection of validity evidence according to Messick's framework. Methods: Novices and experienced otoscopists completed a test program on the Earsi otoscopy simulator. Automated assessment of diagnostic ability and performance were compared with manual ratings of technical skills. Reliability of assessment was evaluated using Generalizability theory. Linear mixed models and correlation analysis were used to compare automated and manual assessments. Finally, we used the contrasting groups method to define a pass/fail level for the automated score. Results: A total of 12 novices and 12 experienced otoscopists completed the study. We found an overall G -coefficient of.69 for automated assessment. The experienced otoscopists achieved a significantly higher mean automated score than the novices (59.9% (95% CI [57.3%-62.6%]) vs. 44.6% (95% CI [41.9%-47.2%]), P <.001). For the manual assessment of technical skills, there was no significant difference, nor did the automated score correlate with the manually rated score (Pearson's r =.20, P =.601). We established a pass/fail standard for the simulator's automated score of 49.3%. Conclusion: We explored validity evidence supporting an otoscopy simulator's automated score, demonstrating that this score mainly reflects cognitive skills. Manual assessment therefore still seems necessary at this point and external video-recording is necessary for valid assessment. To improve the reliability, the test course should include more cases to achieve a higher G-coefficient and a higher pass/fail standard should be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Performing the first peer review of a plastic surgical research article can be an overwhelming task. However, it is an essential scholarly skill and peer review is used in a multitude of settings: evaluation of journal articles, conference abstracts, and research proposals. Furthermore, peer reviewing provides more than just the opportunity to read and help improve other's work: peer reviewing can improve your own scientific writing. A structured approach is possible and recommended. In these ten tips, we provide guidance on how to successfully conduct the first peer reviews. The ten tips on peer reviewing concern: 1) Appropriateness: are you qualified and prepared to perform the peer review? 2) Familiarization with the journal and its reviewing guidelines; 3) Gathering first impressions of the paper followed by specific tips for reviewing; 4) the abstract and introduction; 5) Materials, methods, and results (including statistical considerations); and 6) discussion, conclusion, and references. Tip 7 concerns writing and structuring the review; Tips 7 and 8 describe how to provide constructive criticism and understanding the limits of your expertise. Finally, Tip 10 details why--and how--you become a peer reviewer. Peer review can be done by any plastic surgeon, not just those interested in an academic career. These ten tips provide useful insights for both the aspiring and the experienced peer reviewer. In conclusion, a systematic approach to peer reviewing is possible and recommended, and can help you getting started to provide quality peer reviews that contribute to moving the field of plastic surgery forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Cochlear implantation requires excellent surgical skills; virtual reality simulation training is an effective method for acquiring basic competency in temporal bone surgery before progression to cadaver dissection. However, cochlear implantation virtual reality simulation training remains largely unexplored and only one simulator currently supports the training of the cochlear implantation electrode insertion. Here, we aim to evaluate the effect of cochlear implantation virtual reality simulation training on subsequent cadaver dissection performance and self-directedness. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled trial. Eighteen otolaryngology residents were randomized to either mastoidectomy including cochlear implantation virtual reality simulation training (intervention) or mastoidectomy virtual reality simulation training alone (controls) before cadaver cochlear implantation surgery. Surgical performance was evaluated by two blinded expert raters using a validated, structured assessment tool. The need for supervision (reflecting self-directedness) was assessed via post-dissection questionnaires. RESULTS: The intervention group achieved a mean score of 22.9 points of a maximum of 44 points, which was 5.4% higher than the control group's 21.8 points (P = .51). On average, the intervention group required assistance 1.3 times during cadaver drilling; this was 41% more frequent in the control group who received assistance 1.9 times (P = .21). CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation virtual reality simulation training is feasible in the context of a cadaver dissection course. The addition of cochlear implantation virtual reality training to basic mastoidectomy virtual reality simulation training did not lead to a significant improvement of performance or self-directedness in this study. Our findings suggest that learning an advanced temporal bone procedure such as cochlear implantation surgery requires much more training than learning mastoidectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In cochlear implantation (CI), excellent surgical technique is critical for hearing outcomes. Recent advances in temporal bone Virtual Reality (VR) training allow for specific training of CI and through introduction of new digital microscopes with ultra-high-fidelity (UHF) graphics. This study aims to investigate whether UHF increases performance in VR simulation training of CI electrode insertion compared with conventional, screen-based VR (cVR).Methods: Twenty-four medical students completed a randomized, controlled trial of an educational intervention. They performed a total of eight CI electrode insertions each in blocks of four using either UHF-VR or cVR, in randomized order. CI electrode insertion performances were rated by two blinded expert raters using a structured assessment tool supported by validity evidence.Results: Performance scores in cVR were higher than in the UHF-VR simulation although this was not significant (19.8 points, 95% CI [19.3-20.3] vs. 18.8 points, 95% CI [18.2-19.4]; P = 0.09). The decisive factor for performance was participants' ability to achieve stereovision (mean difference = 1.1 points, 95% CI [0.15-2.08], P = 0.02).Discussion: No additional benefit was found from UHF-VR over cVR training of CI electrode insertion for novices. Consequently, standard cVR simulation should be used for novices' basic skills acquisition in CI surgery. Future studies should instead explore the effects of other improvements in CI surgery training and if the lacking benefit of UHF-VR also applies for more experienced learners.Conclusion: The increased graphical perception and the superior lifelikeness of UHF-VR does not improve early skills acquisition of CI insertion for novices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mastering Cochlear Implant (CI) surgery requires repeated practice, preferably initiated in a safe – i.e. simulated – environment. Mastoidectomy Virtual Reality (VR) simulation-based training (SBT) is effective, but SBT of CI surgery largely uninvestigated. The learning curve is imperative for understanding surgical skills acquisition and developing competency-based training. Here, we explore learning curves in VR SBT of CI surgery and transfer of skills to a 3D-printed model. Prospective, single-arm trial. Twenty-four novice medical students completed a pre-training CI inserting test on a commercially available pre-drilled 3D-printed temporal bone. A training program of 18 VR simulation CI procedures was completed in the Visual Ear Simulator over four sessions. Finally, a post-training test similar to the pre-training test was completed. Two blinded experts rated performances using the validated Cochlear Implant Surgery Assessment Tool (CISAT). Performance scores were analyzed using linear mixed models. Learning curves were highly individual with primary performance improvement initially, and small but steady improvements throughout the 18 procedures. CI VR simulation performance improved 33% (p < 0.001). Insertion performance on a 3D-printed temporal bone improved 21% (p < 0.001), demonstrating skills transfer. VR SBT of CI surgery improves novices' performance. It is useful for introducing the procedure and acquiring basic skills. CI surgery training should pivot on objective performance assessment for reaching pre-defined competency before cadaver – or real-life surgery. Simulation-based training provides a structured and safe learning environment for initial training. CI surgery skills improve from VR SBT, which can be used to learn the fundamentals of CI surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: 3D-printed models hold great potential for temporal bone surgical training as a supplement to cadaveric dissection. Nevertheless, critical knowledge on manufacturing remains scattered, and little is known about whether use of these models improves surgical performance. This systematic review aims to explore (1) methods used for manufacturing and (2) how educational evidence supports using 3D-printed temporal bone models. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Review Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, relevant studies were identified and data on manufacturing and validation and/or training extracted by 2 reviewers. Quality assessment was performed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument tool; educational outcomes were determined according to Kirkpatrick's model. Results: The search yielded 595 studies; 36 studies were found eligible and included for analysis. The described 3D-printed models were based on computed tomography scans from patients or cadavers. Processing included manual segmentation of key structures such as the facial nerve; postprocessing, for example, consisted of removal of print material inside the model. Overall, educational quality was low, and most studies evaluated their models using only expert and/or trainee opinion (ie, Kirkpatrick level 1). Most studies reported positive attitudes toward the models and their potential for training. Conclusion: Manufacturing and use of 3D-printed temporal bones for surgical training are widely reported in the literature. However, evidence to support their use and knowledge about both manufacturing and the effects on subsequent surgical performance are currently lacking. Therefore, stronger educational evidence and manufacturing knowhow are needed for widespread implementation of 3D-printed temporal bones in surgical curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Otoscopy is a frequently performed procedure and competency in this skill is important across many specialties. We aim to systematically review current medical educational evidence for training of handheld otoscopy skills. Methods: Following the PRISMA guideline, studies reporting on training and/or assessment of handheld otoscopy were identified searching the following databases: PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library, PloS Medicine, Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ), and Web of Science. Two reviewers extracted data on study design, training intervention, educational outcomes, and results. Quality of educational evidence was assessed along with classification according to Kirkpatrick's model of educational outcomes. Results: The searches yielded a total of 6064 studies with a final inclusion of 33 studies for the qualitative synthesis. Handheld otoscopy training could be divided into workshops, physical simulators, web-based training/e-learning, and smartphone-enabled otoscopy. Workshops were the most commonly described educational intervention and typically consisted of lectures, hands-on demonstrations, and training on peers. Almost all studies reported a favorable effect on either learner attitude, knowledge, or skills. The educational quality of the studies was reasonable but the educational outcomes were mostly evaluated on the lower Kirkpatrick levels with only a single study determining the effects of training on actual change in the learner behavior. Conclusion: Overall, it seems that any systematic approach to training of handheld otoscopy is beneficial in training regardless of learner level, but the heterogeneity of the studies makes comparisons between studies difficult and the relative effect sizes of the interventions could not be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In otorhinolaryngology training, introduction to temporal bone surgery through hands-on practice on cadaveric human temporal bones is the gold-standard training method before commencing supervised surgery. During the recent decades, the availability of such specimens and the necessary laboratory facilities for training seems to be decreasing. Alternatives to traditional training can consist of drilling artificial models made of plaster or plastic but also virtual reality (VR) simulation. Nevertheless, the integration and availability of these alternatives into specialist training programs remain unknown.Methods: We conducted a questionnaire study mapping current status on temporal bone training and included responses from 113 departments from 23 countries throughout Europe.Results: In general, temporal bone training during residency in ORL is organized as in-house training, or as participation in national or international temporal bone courses or some combination hereof. There are considerable differences in the availability of training facilities for temporal bone surgery and the number of drillings each ORL trainee can perform. Cadaveric dissection is still the most commonly used training modality.Conclusions: VR simulation and artificial models are reported to be used at many leading training departments already. Decreasing availability of cadavers, lower costs of VR simulation and artificial models, in addition to established evidence for a positive effect on the trainees’ competency, were reported as the main reasons. Most remaining departments expect to implement VR simulation and artificial models for temporal bone training into their residency programs in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Reliability is pivotal in surgical skills assessment. Video-based assessment can be used for objective assessment without physical presence of assessors. However, its reliability for surgical assessments remains largely unexplored. In this study, we evaluated the reliability of video-based versus physical assessments of novices' surgical performances on human cadavers and 3D-printed models-an emerging simulation modality., Methods: Eighteen otorhinolaryngology residents performed 2 to 3 mastoidectomies on a 3D-printed model and 1 procedure on a human cadaver. Performances were rated by 3 experts evaluating the final surgical result using a well-known assessment tool. Performances were rated both hands-on/physically and by video recordings. Interrater reliability and intrarater reliability were explored using κ statistics and the optimal number of raters and performances required in either assessment modality was determined using generalizability theory., Results: Interrater reliability was moderate with a mean κ score of 0.58 (range 0.53-0.62) for video-based assessment and 0.60 (range, 0.55-0.69) for physical assessment. Video-based and physical assessments were equally reliable (G coefficient 0.85 vs. 0.80 for 3D-printed models and 0.86 vs 0.87 for cadaver dissections). The interaction between rater and assessment modality contributed to 8.1% to 9.1% of the estimated variance. For the 3D-printed models, 2 raters evaluating 2 video-recorded performances or 3 raters physically assessing 2 performances yielded sufficient reliability for high-stakes assessment (G coefficient >0.8)., Conclusions: Video-based and physical assessments were equally reliable. Some raters were affected by changing from physical to video-based assessment; consequently, assessment should be either physical or video based, not a combination., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Simulation in Healthcare.)