Search

Aims & Objectives: The primary aim of this paper is to determine whether smart glasses or head-mounted displays improve efficiency in a procedural or theatre setting without compromising the quality of the procedure performed. Additionally, this paper aims to qualitatively explore applications in surgical education, whilst on-call, consulting and patient observation. Design: This paper is a systematic review of the literature available on the topic of smart glasses or head-mounted displays in surgical or procedural settings. Methods: A search of Pubmed, Cochrane and the Wiley Online Library was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Procedural times and adverse outcomes were compared between the smart glass and non-smart glass groups in each of the quantitative studies. A literature review of studies, including those not satisfying the primary aim was conducted and is included in this paper. Results: 32 studies were identified that complied with the inclusion criteria of this paper. 8 of these studies focused on procedural times and adverse outcomes, with and without smart glass usage. Procedural time was reduced when smart glass technology was used, without an increase in adverse patient outcomes. Conclusions: Surgeons should consider whether the relatively short reduction in procedural time is worth the high cost, privacy issues, battery complaints and user discomfort involved with these devices. There are promising applications of this technology in the areas of surgical education and consultation. However, more trials are necessary to assess the value of using smart glasses in these settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Statement: This review aimed to explore the published evidence with regard to the types and composition of both full- and part-task trainers to teach surgeons extremity exploration procedures in limb trauma management. Studies were included if they reported the development and/or validation of synthetic or virtual task trainers. Studies were evaluated to determine their derivation, usability, and clinical utility.A total of 638 citations were identified and 63 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five articles addressed simulator validation and 36 addressed level of learning achieved with simulator engagement. Two studies described a dedicated limb simulator. Simulators were developed to repair limb structures including skin (n = 15), tendon (n = 7), nerve (n = 1), fascia (n = 1), muscle (n = 1), vascular (n = 24), and bone (n = 11). Considerations such as material fidelity, learning outcomes, cost or reusability, validity, and effectiveness are inconsistently reported. Future studies should address design standards for the effective production of synthetic or virtual simulators for limb trauma management., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Simulation in Healthcare.)

Statement: The role of simulation to teach and access open surgical skills has become more prevalent in recent years. This systematic review synthesizes the totality of evidence with respect to the educational effectiveness of simulators used in open surgical training. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. Only randomized controlled trials were included that explored the educational efficacy of theses simulators. Six randomized controlled trials were included from the 9934 studies found. The methodological quality of the included studies was variable. Overall, the use of the simulators was more educationally effective compared with standard teaching of the skill without a simulator (P < 0.05). Two studies showed that the simulator was as good as an animal model of much higher fidelity. Further studies are needed to secure higher evidence for the educational value, validity, and transferability of the skills to the hospital setting for all simulators.