A comparison of commercially available synthetic skin substitutes for surgical simulation training.

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES GMS Journal for Medical Education Pub Date : 2023-09-15 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3205/zma001644
Laura Awad, Benjamin J Langridge, Faith H K Jeon, Edward Bollen, Peter E M Butler
{"title":"A comparison of commercially available synthetic skin substitutes for surgical simulation training.","authors":"Laura Awad,&nbsp;Benjamin J Langridge,&nbsp;Faith H K Jeon,&nbsp;Edward Bollen,&nbsp;Peter E M Butler","doi":"10.3205/zma001644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Simulation training provides an important opportunity to accelerate surgical skills acquisition whilst safeguarding patients. This study compares the suitability of different synthetic skin substitutes for use in surgical simulation training.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Data was collected for eight commercially available synthetic skin substitutes and included cost, delivery time, subjective assessment of fidelity by surgeons and trainees, and objective comparison with the biomechanics of human skin was made through cutometry and durometry measurements. Cutometry and durometry data was collected from three healthy adults from the forearm, forehead and back, with measurements being repeated in triplicate. Subjective assessment of skin pad quality was collected using an 8-criteria questionnaire, graded using a 5-point Likert scale for fidelity to normal skin.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The questionnaire assessment was completed by 30 trainees and practitioners. Overall, felt pads received the poorest outcomes in all criteria; cutometry and durometry results demonstrate poor similarity to skin, and felt received the lowest scores in the questionnaire, although the cheapest. Foam dressings were similar in both cutometric and durometric properties to skin of the face, back and arm. Clinical outcomes of foam dressings were similar to the most expensive commercial skin pad.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bilaminar foam-based dressings provide a low cost, high fidelity non-biological simulation of skin for surgical training, which is non-inferior to more expensive specifically designed products. Many products designed to act as skin substitutes for surgical simulation fail to adequately replicate the anatomical and mechanical properties of skin.</p>","PeriodicalId":45850,"journal":{"name":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","volume":"40 5","pages":"Doc62"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594032/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001644","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Simulation training provides an important opportunity to accelerate surgical skills acquisition whilst safeguarding patients. This study compares the suitability of different synthetic skin substitutes for use in surgical simulation training.

Design: Data was collected for eight commercially available synthetic skin substitutes and included cost, delivery time, subjective assessment of fidelity by surgeons and trainees, and objective comparison with the biomechanics of human skin was made through cutometry and durometry measurements. Cutometry and durometry data was collected from three healthy adults from the forearm, forehead and back, with measurements being repeated in triplicate. Subjective assessment of skin pad quality was collected using an 8-criteria questionnaire, graded using a 5-point Likert scale for fidelity to normal skin.

Results: The questionnaire assessment was completed by 30 trainees and practitioners. Overall, felt pads received the poorest outcomes in all criteria; cutometry and durometry results demonstrate poor similarity to skin, and felt received the lowest scores in the questionnaire, although the cheapest. Foam dressings were similar in both cutometric and durometric properties to skin of the face, back and arm. Clinical outcomes of foam dressings were similar to the most expensive commercial skin pad.

Conclusions: Bilaminar foam-based dressings provide a low cost, high fidelity non-biological simulation of skin for surgical training, which is non-inferior to more expensive specifically designed products. Many products designed to act as skin substitutes for surgical simulation fail to adequately replicate the anatomical and mechanical properties of skin.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
商业上可买到的用于外科模拟训练的合成皮肤替代品的比较。
目的:模拟培训提供了一个重要的机会,在保护患者的同时,加快外科技能的获取。本研究比较了不同合成皮肤替代品在外科模拟训练中的适用性。设计:收集了八种市售合成皮肤替代品的数据,包括成本、交付时间、外科医生和受训人员对逼真度的主观评估,并通过截面积测量和硬度测量与人类皮肤的生物力学进行了客观比较。从三名健康成年人的前臂、前额和背部收集截面积和硬度数据,重复测量三次。使用8项标准问卷收集皮肤垫质量的主观评估,并使用5点Likert量表对正常皮肤的保真度进行评分。结果:30名学员和从业人员完成了问卷评估。总体而言,毛毡垫在所有标准中获得的结果最差;切口测量和硬度测量结果显示与皮肤的相似性较差,feel在问卷中得分最低,尽管是最便宜的。泡沫敷料在截面积和硬度方面与面部、背部和手臂的皮肤相似。泡沫敷料的临床效果与最昂贵的商业皮肤垫相似。结论:双层泡沫敷料为外科训练提供了一种低成本、高保真度的皮肤非生物模拟,与更昂贵的专门设计的产品相比并不逊色。许多设计用作外科模拟皮肤替代品的产品未能充分复制皮肤的解剖和机械特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
GMS Journal for Medical Education
GMS Journal for Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
30
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: GMS Journal for Medical Education (GMS J Med Educ) – formerly GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung – publishes scientific articles on all aspects of undergraduate and graduate education in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and other health professions. Research and review articles, project reports, short communications as well as discussion papers and comments may be submitted. There is a special focus on empirical studies which are methodologically sound and lead to results that are relevant beyond the respective institution, profession or country. Please feel free to submit qualitative as well as quantitative studies. We especially welcome submissions by students. It is the mission of GMS Journal for Medical Education to contribute to furthering scientific knowledge in the German-speaking countries as well as internationally and thus to foster the improvement of teaching and learning and to build an evidence base for undergraduate and graduate education. To this end, the journal has set up an editorial board with international experts. All manuscripts submitted are subjected to a clearly structured peer review process. All articles are published bilingually in English and German and are available with unrestricted open access. Thus, GMS Journal for Medical Education is available to a broad international readership. GMS Journal for Medical Education is published as an unrestricted open access journal with at least four issues per year. In addition, special issues on current topics in medical education research are also published. Until 2015 the journal was published under its German name GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. By changing its name to GMS Journal for Medical Education, we wish to underline our international mission.
期刊最新文献
"Powerful placebo": A teaching and learning concept addressing placebo and nocebo effects in competency-based communication training. Attitudinal changes of undergraduate students learning online interprofessional education for patient safety: Comparative evaluation of an online program using the DID method. EYE-ECG: An RCT of the influence of student characteristics and expert eye-tracking videos with cued retrospective reporting on students' ECG interpretation skills. Formative key feature examinations as innovative teaching approach in dental education: A project report. Insights into the meaning of medical students' studies. An online survey at two medical faculties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1