ReviewGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2021
Review of the use of simulators in learning revascularization techniques.
Review in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Teaching heart valve surgery techniques using simulators: a systematic review.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgiePooled it
- Development of colonic stent simulator using three-dimensional printing technique: a simulator development study in Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Distance Learning in Surgical Education.Current surgery reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe apprentice model has been traditionally used to train cardiac surgery and cardiology learners the techniques for revascularization with the use of simulators recently becoming more prevalent in these training programs. This review aims to summarize research conducted on the use of simulation-based teaching (SBT) for trainees learning percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and off-pump CABG (OPCAB). RECENT
findingsPrior literature evaluating the utility of SBT has demonstrated remarkable results including reduced procedural times, use of fluoroscopy, incidence of mistakes, improved stent placement, and confidence with PCI simulators. Similarly, the use of CABG and OPCAB simulators demonstrated improvement in forceps use, needle angles, Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill, and reduced completion times. The apprentice model has undoubtedly been successful as the most successful cardiac surgeons and cardiologists have been produced through this training model. Even so, many shortcomings have been identified including insufficient time to teach all relevant technical skills, inadequate exposure to rare adverse events, high-cost, and often unstructured format while being time-consuming and resource-intensive with little objective assessment of proficiency. SBT has been pursued as a potential adjunct to fill the gaps left by the traditional apprentice model. While simulations have been demonstrated to be successful in teaching both experienced and inexperienced learners complex techniques, it is unlikely that training will ever solely rely on simulations. The most efficient method of training learners for revascularization in the future will likely involve a combination of hands-on learning and SBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33428083What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.