ArticleJPRAS open2026
Surgical skills laboratories in plastic surgery residency training: A national survey of current practices and barriers.
Article in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical skills labs (SSLs) provide plastic surgery residents hands-on experience in surgical techniques in a controlled learning environment. Despite growing evidence supporting simulation-based education, the adoption and structure of SSLs vary widely across plastic surgery residency programs. This study aimed to characterize the prevalence, organization, and funding of SSLs nationwide, identify barriers to implementation, and highlight strategies used by programs with established labs. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed in February 2024 to program directors of all accredited U.S. plastic surgery residency programs. Programs were categorized by the presence or absence of dedicated SSL. Survey items addressed curriculum design, instructional content, participants, costs, administrative support, facilities, and perceived barriers. Results: Of 93 programs surveyed, 29 (31%) responded, with 19 reporting a dedicated SSL and 10 did not. Among programs with SSLs, 79% reported structured curricula developed through faculty and resident input. Common instructional topics included microvascular surgery (95%), fracture plating (79%), splinting (74%), non-surgical aesthetic procedures (74%), and cadaver-based dissections (56%). Thirteen programs used cadaver and non-cadaver sessions, while six relied solely on non-cadaver training. Funding sources included plastic surgery divisions (63%), industry (53%), and general surgery departments (32%). Programs without SSLs relied on periodic hands-on sessions and industry-sponsored workshops. Most frequently cited barriers to SSL implementation were funding constraints, limited faculty availability, and lack of dedicated facilities. Conclusion: Considerable variability exists in the availability, structure, and institutional support of surgical skills laboratories across plastic surgery residency programs. Survey responses from programs with established skills laboratories identified reproducible best practices including structured, modular curricula, designated faculty leadership, protected scheduling, strategic resource utilization, resident engagement, and embedded competency-based assessment that may guide future program development. Adoption of these practices, alongside collaborative and regional resource-sharing efforts, may help expand equitable access to high-quality simulation-based training nationwide.
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.