Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Sep 9;2015(9):CD010198.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010198.pub2.

Virtual reality training for improving the skills needed for performing surgery of the ear, nose or throat

Patorn Piromchai  1 , Alex Avery, Malinee Laopaiboon, Gregor Kennedy, Stephen O'Leary
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Virtual reality training for improving the skills needed for performing surgery of the ear, nose or throat

Patorn Piromchai et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Virtual reality simulation uses computer-generated imagery to present a simulated training environment for learners. This review seeks to examine whether there is evidence to support the introduction of virtual reality surgical simulation into ear, nose and throat surgical training programmes.

Objectives: 1. To assess whether surgeons undertaking virtual reality simulation-based training achieve surgical ('patient') outcomes that are at least as good as, or better than, those achieved through conventional training methods.2. To assess whether there is evidence from either the operating theatre, or from controlled (simulation centre-based) environments, that virtual reality-based surgical training leads to surgical skills that are comparable to, or better than, those achieved through conventional training.

Search methods: The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 6); PubMed; EMBASE; ERIC; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 27 July 2015.

Selection criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials and controlled trials comparing virtual reality training and any other method of training in ear, nose or throat surgery.

Data collection and analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We evaluated both technical and non-technical aspects of skill competency.

Main results: We included nine studies involving 210 participants. Out of these, four studies (involving 61 residents) assessed technical skills in the operating theatre (primary outcomes). Five studies (comprising 149 residents and medical students) assessed technical skills in controlled environments (secondary outcomes). The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the GRADE quality of evidence for most outcomes across studies as 'low'. Operating theatre environment (primary outcomes) In the operating theatre, there were no studies that examined two of three primary outcomes: real world patient outcomes and acquisition of non-technical skills. The third primary outcome (technical skills in the operating theatre) was evaluated in two studies comparing virtual reality endoscopic sinus surgery training with conventional training. In one study, psychomotor skill (which relates to operative technique or the physical co-ordination associated with instrument handling) was assessed on a 10-point scale. A second study evaluated the procedural outcome of time-on-task. The virtual reality group performance was significantly better, with a better psychomotor score (mean difference (MD) 1.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.81; 10-point scale) and a shorter time taken to complete the operation (MD -5.50 minutes, 95% CI -9.97 to -1.03). Controlled training environments (secondary outcomes) In a controlled environment five studies evaluated the technical skills of surgical trainees (one study) and medical students (three studies). One study was excluded from the analysis. Surgical trainees: One study (80 participants) evaluated the technical performance of surgical trainees during temporal bone surgery, where the outcome was the quality of the final dissection. There was no difference in the end-product scores between virtual reality and cadaveric temporal bone training. Medical students: Two other studies (40 participants) evaluated technical skills achieved by medical students in the temporal bone laboratory. Learners' knowledge of the flow of the operative procedure (procedural score) was better after virtual reality than conventional training (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.79). There was also a significant difference in end-product score between the virtual reality and conventional training groups (SMD 2.60, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.49). One study (17 participants) revealed that medical students acquired anatomical knowledge (on a scale of 0 to 10) better during virtual reality than during conventional training (MD 4.3, 95% CI 2.05 to 6.55). No studies in a controlled training environment assessed non-technical skills.

Authors' conclusions: There is limited evidence to support the inclusion of virtual reality surgical simulation into surgical training programmes, on the basis that it can allow trainees to develop technical skills that are at least as good as those achieved through conventional training. Further investigations are required to determine whether virtual reality training is associated with better real world outcomes for patients and the development of non-technical skills. Virtual reality simulation may be considered as an additional learning tool for medical students.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Patorn Piromchai: none known.

Alex Avery: none known.

Malinee Laopaiboon: none known.

Gregor Kennedy: was an investigator on two of the included studies (Zhao 2011a; Zhao 2011b) and two of the excluded studies (Zhao 2010a; Zhao 2010b).

Stephen O'Leary: was an investigator on two of the included studies (Zhao 2011a; Zhao 2011b) and two of the excluded studies (Zhao 2010a; Zhao 2010b).

Figures

1
1
Process for sifting search results and selecting studies for inclusion.
2
2
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Virtual reality endoscopic sinus surgery versus conventional training: surgical trainees performance in operating theatre, outcome: 1.1 Psychomotor score.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 3 Virtual reality temporal bone dissection training versus conventional training: medical students performance in controlled environment, outcome: 3.1 Procedural score.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 3 Virtual reality temporal bone dissection training versus conventional training: medical students performance in controlled environment, outcome: 3.2 End‐product score.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Virtual reality endoscopic sinus surgery versus conventional training: surgical trainees' performance in the operating theatre, Outcome 1 Psychomotor score.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Virtual reality endoscopic sinus surgery versus conventional training: surgical trainees' performance in the operating theatre, Outcome 2 Procedural score.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Virtual reality temporal bone dissection training versus cadaveric dissection training: surgical trainees' performance in a controlled environment, Outcome 1 End‐product score.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Virtual reality temporal bone dissection training versus conventional training: medical students' performance in a controlled environment, Outcome 1 Procedural score.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Virtual reality temporal bone dissection training versus conventional training: medical students' performance in a controlled environment, Outcome 2 End‐product score.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Virtual reality endoscopic sinus surgery versus conventional training: medical students' performance in a controlled environment, Outcome 1 Anatomy score.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010198

Similar articles

  • Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery.
    Nagendran M, Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Loizidou M, Davidson BR. Nagendran M, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 27;2013(8):CD006575. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006575.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 23980026 Free PMC article.
  • Coblation versus other surgical techniques for tonsillectomy.
    Pynnonen M, Brinkmeier JV, Thorne MC, Chong LY, Burton MJ. Pynnonen M, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 22;8(8):CD004619. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004619.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28828761 Free PMC article.
  • Ear drops for the removal of ear wax.
    Aaron K, Cooper TE, Warner L, Burton MJ. Aaron K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 25;7(7):CD012171. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012171.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 30043448 Free PMC article.
  • Topical versus systemic antibiotics for chronic suppurative otitis media.
    Chong LY, Head K, Webster KE, Daw J, Strobel NA, Richmond PC, Snelling T, Bhutta MF, Schilder AG, Brennan-Jones CG. Chong LY, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 9;6(6):CD013053. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013053.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025. PMID: 40484402
  • Rehabilitation for ankle fractures in adults.
    Lewis SR, Pritchard MW, Parker R, Searle HKC, Beckenkamp PR, Keene DJ, Bretherton C, Lin CC. Lewis SR, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Sep 23;9(9):CD005595. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005595.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 39312389
See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Edmond 2002 {published data only}
    1. Edmond CV Jr. Impact of the endoscopic sinus surgical simulator on operating room performance. Laryngoscope 2002;112(7 Pt 1):1148‐58. - PubMed
Fried 2010 {published data only}
    1. Fried MP, Sadoughi B, Gibber MJ, Jacobs JB, Lebowitz RA, Ross DA, et al. From virtual reality to the operating room: the endoscopic sinus surgery simulator experiment. Otolaryngology ‐ Head and Neck Surgery 2010;142(2):202‐7. - PubMed
Fried 2012 {published data only}
    1. Fried MP, Kaye RJ, Gibber MJ, Jackman AH, Paskhover BP, Sadoughi B, et al. Criterion‐based (proficiency) training to improve surgical performance. Archives of Otolaryngology ‐ Head and Neck Surgery 2012;138(11):1024‐9. - PubMed
Solyar 2008 {published data only}
    1. Solyar A, Cuellar H, Sadoughi B, Olson TR, Fried MP. Endoscopic sinus surgery simulator as a teaching tool for anatomy education. American Journal of Surgery 2008;196(1):120‐4. - PubMed
Weiss 2008 {published data only}
    1. Weiss M, Lauer SA, Fried MP, Uribe J, Sadoughi B. Endoscopic endonasal surgery simulator as a training tool for ophthalmology residents. Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2008;24(6):460‐4. - PubMed
Wiet 2009 {published data only}
    1. Wiet GJ, Rastatter JC, Bapna S, Packer M, Stredney D, Welling DB. Training otologic surgical skills through simulation‐moving toward validation: a pilot study and lessons learned. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 2009;1(1):61‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Wiet 2012 {published data only}
    1. Wiet GJ, Stredney D, Kerwin T, Hittle B, Fernandez SA, Abdel‐Rasoul M, et al. Virtual temporal bone dissection system: OSU virtual temporal bone system: development and testing. Laryngoscope 2012;122(Suppl 1):S1‐12. - PMC - PubMed
Zhao 2011a {published data only}
    1. Zhao YC, Kennedy G, Yukawa K, Pyman B, O'Leary S. Improving temporal bone dissection using self‐directed virtual reality simulation: results of a randomized blinded control trial. Otolaryngology ‐ Head and Neck Surgery 2011;144(3):357‐64. - PubMed
Zhao 2011b {published data only}
    1. Zhao YC, Kennedy G, Yukawa K, Pyman B, O'Leary S. Can virtual reality simulator be used as a training aid to improve cadaver temporal bone dissection? Results of a randomized blinded control trial. Laryngoscope 2011;121(4):831‐7. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Balderston 2007 {published data only}
    1. Balderston J. Tympanostomy tube insertion simulator: does it improve performance?. 61st Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology ‐ Head & Neck Surgery (CSOHNS). Montreal, Quebec, May 13‐16, 2007. 2007.
Delson 2003 {published data only}
    1. Delson NJ, Koussa N, Hastings RH, Weinger MB. Quantifying expert vs. novice skill in vivo for development of a laryngoscopy simulator. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2003;94:45‐51. - PubMed
Deutsch 2009 {published data only}
    1. Deutsch ES, Christenson T, Curry J, Hossain J, Zur K, Jacobs I. Multimodality education for airway endoscopy skill development. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 2009;118(2):81‐6. - PubMed
Francis 2012 {published data only}
    1. Francis HW, Malik MU, Diaz Voss Varela DA, Barffour MA, Chien WW, Carey JP, et al. Technical skills improve after practice on virtual‐reality temporal bone simulator. Laryngoscope 2012;122(6):1385‐91. - PubMed
Fried 2007 {published data only}
    1. Fried MP, Sadoughi B, Weghorst SJ, Zeltsan M, Cuellar H, Uribe JI, et al. Construct validity of the endoscopic sinus surgery simulator: II. Assessment of discriminant validity and expert benchmarking. Archives of Otolaryngology ‐‐ Head and Neck Surgery 2007;133(4):350‐7. - PubMed
Ho 2012 {published data only}
    1. Ho AK, Alsaffar H, Doyle PC, Ladak HM, Agrawal SK. Virtual reality myringotomy simulation with real‐time deformation: development and validity testing. Laryngoscope 2012;122(8):1844‐51. - PubMed
Kerwin 2013 {published data only}
    1. Kerwin T, Stredney D, Wiet G, Shen HW. Virtual mastoidectomy performance evaluation through multi‐volume analysis. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 2013;8(1):51‐61. - PMC - PubMed
Khemani 2012 {published data only}
    1. Khemani S, Arora A, Singh A, Tolley N, Darzi A. Objective skills assessment and construct validation of a virtual reality temporal bone simulator. Otology & Neurotology 2012;33(7):1225‐31. - PubMed
Reddy‐Kolanu 2011 {published data only}
    1. Reddy‐Kolanu G, Alderson D. Evaluating the effectiveness of the Voxel‐Man TempoSurg virtual reality simulator in facilitating learning mastoid surgery. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2011;93(3):205‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Sewell 2007a {published data only}
    1. Sewell C, Morris D, Blevins NH, Agrawal S, Dutta S, Barbagli F, et al. Validating metrics for a mastoidectomy simulator. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2007;125:421‐6. - PubMed
Sewell 2007b {published data only}
    1. Sewell C, Morris D, Blevins NH, Barbagli F, Salisbury K. Evaluating drilling and suctioning technique in a mastoidectomy simulator. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2007;125:427‐32. - PubMed
Strauss 2005 {published data only}
    1. Strauss G, Trantakis C, Nowatius E, Falk V, Maass H, Cakmak K, et al. Virtual training in head‐ and neurosurgery. Laryngo‐Rhino‐Otologie 2005;84(5):335‐44. - PubMed
Stredney 1998 {published data only}
    1. Stredney D, Wiet GJ, Yagel R, Sessanna D, Kurzion Y, Fontana M, et al. A comparative analysis of integrating visual representations with haptic displays. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 1998;50:20‐6. - PubMed
Tolsdorff 2010 {published data only}
    1. Tolsdorff B, Pommert A, Hohne KH, Petersik A, Pflesser B, Tiede U, et al. Virtual reality: a new paranasal sinus surgery simulator. Laryngoscope 2010;120(2):420‐6. - PubMed
Wiet 2006 {published data only}
    1. Wiet G. Validation/dissemination of a temporal bone dissection simulator. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00887185. [NCT00887185]
Yamashita 1999 {published data only}
    1. Yamashita J, Yamauchi Y, Mochimaru M, Fukui Y, Yokoyama K. Real‐time 3‐D model‐based navigation system for endoscopic paranasal sinus surgery. IEEE Transactions on Bio‐medical Engineering 1999;46(1):107‐16. - PubMed
Zhao 2010a {published data only}
    1. Zhao YC, Kennedy G, Hall R, O'Leary S. Differentiating levels of surgical experience on a virtual reality temporal bone simulator. Otolaryngology ‐ Head and Neck Surgery 2010;143(5 Suppl 3):S30‐5. - PubMed
Zhao 2010b {published data only}
    1. Zhao YC, Kennedy G, Pyman B, Orimoto K, O'Leary S. Self‐directed VR simulation training improves TB dissection. 114th American Academy of Otolaryngology ‐ Head & Neck Surgery Annual Meeting & Oto Expo, Boston, 26‐29 September, 2010. Otolaryngology ‐ Head and Neck Surgery 2010;2(Suppl 2):P104‐5.
Zirkle 2007 {published data only}
    1. Zirkle M, Roberson DW, Leuwer R, Dubrowski A. Using a virtual reality temporal bone simulator to assess otolaryngology trainees. Laryngoscope 2007;2:258‐63. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

NCT02030873 {published data only}
    1. NCT02030873. The effect of virtual simulation training in mastoidectomy. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02030873 2014.

Additional references

Bryan 2009
    1. Bryan R, Kreuter M, Brownson R. Integrating adult learning principles into training for public health practice. Health Promotion Practice 2009;10(4):557‐63. - PubMed
Butler 2007
    1. Butler NN, Wiet GJ. Reliability of the Welling scale (WS1) for rating temporal bone dissection performance. Laryngoscope 2007;117(10):1803‐8. [PUBMED: 17721407] - PubMed
Cavaleiro 2009
    1. Cavaleiro AP, Guimaraes H, Calheiros FL. Training neonatal skills with simulator?. Acta Paediatrica 2009;98(4):636‐9. - PubMed
Cherry 2007
    1. Cherry RA, Williams J, George J, Ali J. The effectiveness of a human patient simulator in the ATLS shock skills station. Journal of Surgical Research 2007;139(2):229‐35. - PubMed
Crossley 2011
    1. Crossley J, Marriott J, Purdie H, Beard JD. Prospective observational study to evaluate NOTSS (Non‐Technical Skills for Surgeons) for assessing trainees' non‐technical performance in the operating theatre. British Journal of Surgery 2011;98(7):1010‐20. [PUBMED: 21480195] - PubMed
Ericsson 2004
    1. Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine 2004;79(10 Suppl):s70‐81. - PubMed
Flin 2006
    1. Flin R, Yule S, Rowley D, Paterson‐Brown S, Maran N. The Non‐Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) System Handbook. Vol. 1.2, Technical Report, University of Aberdeen, 2006.
Gala 2013
    1. Gala R, Orejuela F, Gerten K, Lockrow E, Kilpatrick C, Chohan L, et al. Effect of validated skills simulation on operating room performance in obstetrics and gynecology residents: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013;121(3):578‐84. [PUBMED: 23635621] - PubMed
Gallagher 2005
    1. Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H, Higgins G, Fried MP, Moses G, et al. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency‐based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Annals of Surgery 2005;241(2):364‐72. [PUBMED: 15650649] - PMC - PubMed
George 2010
    1. George AP, De R. Review of temporal bone dissection teaching: how it was, is and will be. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 2010;124(2):119‐25. [PUBMED: 19954559] - PubMed
Handbook 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Issenberg 2005
    1. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high‐fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher 2005;27(1):10‐28. - PubMed
Jackson 2002
    1. Jackson A, John NW, Thacker NA, Ramsden RT, Gillespie JE, Gobbetti E, et al. Developing a virtual reality environment in petrous bone surgery: a state‐of‐the‐art review. Otology & Neurotology 2002;23(2):111‐21. - PubMed
Javia 2012
    1. Javia L, Deutsch ES. A systematic review of simulators in otolaryngology. Otolaryngology ‐ Head and Neck Surgery 2012;147(6):999‐1011. [DOI: 10.1177/0194599812462007] - DOI - PubMed
Kolb 1984
    1. Kolb SE, Shugart EB. Evaluation: is simulation the answer?. Journal of Nursing Education 1984;23(2):84‐6. [PUBMED: 6323656] - PubMed
Kundhal 2009
    1. Kundhal PS, Grantcharov TP. Psychomotor performance measured in a virtual environment correlates with technical skills in the operating room. Surgical Endoscopy 2009;23(3):645‐9. - PubMed
Lambert 2003
    1. Lambert MJ, Whipple JL, Hawkins EJ, Vermeersch DA, Nielsen SL, Smart DW. Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? a meta‐analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2003;10(3):288‐301.
Larsen 1979
    1. Larsen DL, Attkisson CC, Hargreaves WA, Nguyen TD. Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: development of a general scale. Evaluation and Program Planning 1979;2(3):197‐207. - PubMed
Lateef 2010
    1. Lateef F. Simulation‐based learning: just like the real thing. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock 2010;3(4):348‐52. [PUBMED: 21063557] - PMC - PubMed
Lewis 2012
    1. Lewis R, Strachan A, Smith MM. Is high fidelity simulation the most effective method for the development of non‐technical skills in nursing? A review of the current evidence. Open Nursing Journal 2012;6(8):82‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Maran 2003
    1. Maran NJ, Glavin RJ. Low‐ to high‐fidelity simulation ‐ a continuum of medical education?. Medical Education 2003;37(Suppl 1):22‐8. - PubMed
Mazzocco 2009
    1. Mazzocco K, Petitti DB, Fong KT, Bonacum D, Brookey J, Graham S, et al. Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. American Journal of Surgery 2009;197(5):678‐85. [PUBMED: 18789425] - PubMed
McGaghie 2006
    1. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. Effect of practice on standardised learning outcomes in simulation‐based medical education. Medical Education 2006;40(8):792‐7. [PUBMED: 16869926] - PubMed
Nagendran 2013
    1. Nagendran M, Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Loizidou M, Davidson BR. Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006575.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Nehls 1995
    1. Nehls N. Narrative pedagogy and its application in the nursing curriculum. Journal of Nursing Education 1995;34:204‐10. - PubMed
Nogueira 2010
    1. Nogueira Júnior JF, Cruz DN. Real models and virtual simulators in otolaryngology: review of literature. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2010;76(1):129‐35. - PMC - PubMed
Okuda 2009
    1. Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria S Jr, Jacobson L, Quinones J, Shen B, et al. The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence?. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 2009;76(4):330‐43. [PUBMED: 19642147] - PubMed
Peng 2009
    1. Peng W, Zhang XW, Zhou BY, Zhang Y, Wan L, Chen MB. A study of SimMan system on CPR training for students. Research in Medical Education 2009;8:968‐70.
Rafiq 2008
    1. Rafiq A, Franciso T, Boanca C, Lavrentyev V, Merrell R. Objective assessment of training surgical skills using simulated tissue interface with real‐time feedback. Journal of Surgical Education 2008;65(4):270‐4. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Reznick 1997
    1. Reznick R, Regehr G, MacRae H, Martin J, McCulloch W. Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination. American Journal of Surgery 1997;173(3):226‐30. - PubMed
Rourke 2010
    1. Rourke L, Schmidt M, Garga N. Theory‐based research of high fidelity simulation use in nursing education: a review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 2010;7(1):Article 11. [PUBMED: 20361859] - PubMed
Satava 2008
    1. Satava RM. Historical review of surgical simulation ‐ a personal perspective. World Journal of Surgery 2008;32:141‐8. - PubMed
Sedlack 2004
    1. Sedlack RE, Kolars JC. Computer simulator training enhances the competency of gastroenterology fellows at colonoscopy: results of a pilot study. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2004;99(1):33‐7. [PUBMED: 14687137] - PubMed
Tsuda 2009
    1. Tsuda S, Scott D, Doyle J, Jones DB. Surgical skills training and simulation. Current Problems in Surgery 2009;46:271‐370. - PubMed
Wijewickrema 2014
    1. Wijewickrema S, Ioannou I, Zhou Y, Piromchai P, Bailey J, Kennedy G, et al. A temporal bone surgery simulator with real‐time feedback for surgical training. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2014;196:462‐8. [PUBMED: 24732557] - PubMed
Wulf 2005
    1. Wulf G, Raupach M, Pfeiffer F. Self‐controlled observational practice enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 2005;76(1):107‐11. [PUBMED: 15810775] - PubMed
Yule 2008
    1. Yule S, Flin R, Maran N, Rowley D, Youngson G, Paterson‐Brown S. Surgeons' non‐technical skills in the operating room: reliability testing of the NOTSS behavior rating system. World Journal of Surgery 2008;32(4):548‐56. [PUBMED: 18259809] - PubMed
Yule 2009
    1. Yule S, Rowley D, Flin R, Maran N, Youngson G, Duncan J, et al. Experience matters: comparing novice and expert ratings of non‐technical skills using the NOTSS system. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2009;79(3):154‐60. [PUBMED: 19317781] - PubMed
Zhou 2013
    1. Zhou Y, Bailey J, Ioannou I, Wijewickrema S, Kennedy G, O'Leary S. Constructive real time feedback for a temporal bone simulator. Medical image computing and computer‐assisted intervention: MICCAI International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer‐Assisted Intervention 2013;16(Pt 3):315‐22. [PUBMED: 24505776] - PubMed
Zirkle 2007a
    1. Zirkle M, Taplin MA, Anthony R, Dubrowski A. Objective assessment of temporal bone drilling skills. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 2007;116(11):793‐8. [PUBMED: 18074662] - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources