2019 Plastic and reconstructive su…

A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Trial Comparing Digital Simulation to Textbook for Cleft Surgery Education.

, , , , , , , , ,

Plastic and reconstructive surgery Vol. 143 (1) : 202-209 • Jan 2019

BACKGROUND: Simulation is progressively being integrated into surgical training; however, its utility in plastic surgery has not been well described. The authors present a prospective, randomized, blinded trial comparing digital simulation to a surgical textbook for conceptualization of cleft lip repair. METHODS: Thirty-five medical students were randomized to learning cleft repair using a simulator or a textbook. Participants outlined markings for a standard cleft lip repair before (preintervention) and after (postintervention) 20 minutes of studying their respective resource. Two expert reviewers blindly graded markings according to a 10-point scale, on two separate occasions. Intrarater and interrater reliability were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Paired and independent t tests were performed to compare scoring between study groups. A validated student satisfaction survey was administered to assess the two resources separately. RESULTS: Intrarater grading reliability was excellent for both raters for preintervention and postintervention grading (rater 1, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.94 and 0.95, respectively; rater 2, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.60 and 0.92, respectively; p < 0.001). Mean preintervention performances for both groups were comparable (0.82 +/- 1.17 versus 0.64 +/- 0.95; p = 0.31). Significant improvement from preintervention to postintervention performance was observed in the textbook (0.82 +/- 1.17 versus 3.50 +/- 1.62; p < 0.001) and simulator (0.64 +/- 0.95 versus 6.44 +/- 2.03; p < 0.001) groups. However, the simulator group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement (5.81 +/- 2.01 versus 2.68 +/- 1.49; p < 0.001). Participants reported the simulator to be more effective (p < 0.001) and a clearer tool (p < 0.001), that allowed better learning (p < 0.001) than textbooks. All participants would recommend the simulator to others. CONCLUSION: The authors present evidence from a prospective, randomized, blinded trial supporting online digital simulation as a superior educational resource for novice learners, compared with traditional textbooks.

No clinical trial protocols linked to this paper

Clinical trials are automatically linked when NCT numbers are found in the paper's title or abstract.
PICO Elements

No PICO elements extracted yet. Click "Extract PICO" to analyze this paper.

Paper Details
MeSH Terms
Associated Data

No associated datasets or code repositories found for this paper.

Related Papers

Related paper suggestions will be available in future updates.