ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2024
Effect of surgical simulator training on student and live animal outcomes in a feline ovariohysterectomy teaching laboratory.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physical simulation models for veterinary surgical training: a systematic review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Pooled it
- A novel small animal ovariohysterectomy training model improves veterinary students' surgical times.Australian veterinary journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of training with a high-fidelity surgical simulator on outcomes of live animals and students participating in a feline ovariohysterectomy teaching laboratory. STUDY
designNonrandomized controlled trial. SAMPLE POPULATION: Cats (n = 186) and students (n = 146).
methodsLive animals were paired with student surgeons. Outcomes for animals and students were evaluated over two consecutive years before (year 1: NO SIM) and after (year 2: SIM) the introduction of a graded student teaching laboratory conducted on a high fidelity surgical simulator. Live animal surgical times and postoperative pain scores using the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale - Feline acute pain scale as well as self-declared student confidence were assessed and the scores of the two groups were compared.
resultsThe duration of the live animal surgical procedure was on average 6 min shorter in the SIM group (p = .04). A pain score triggering intervention (> = 5/20) occurred less frequently in the SIM group (n = 1/82) than in the NO-SIM (n = 16/104) group (p < .01). Similarly, rescue analgesia was administered less frequently (4/82 vs 16/104, p = .03) in the SIM group. Student confidence prior to the live animal procedure was higher (median = 7/10 [IQR = 6-8]) in the SIM group than in the NO-SIM group (median = 6/10 [IQR = 4-7]) (p < .01).
conclusionSurgical simulator training prior to live animal procedures improves live animal outcomes and student confidence. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Surgical simulator competency should be considered a prerequisite to participation in live animal teaching laboratories. This would improve both animal welfare and the student experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.