METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled trial. Eighteen otolaryngology residents were randomized to either mastoidectomy including cochlear implantation virtual reality simulation training (intervention) or mastoidectomy virtual reality simulation training alone (controls) before cadaver cochlear implantation surgery. Surgical performance was evaluated by two blinded expert raters using a validated, structured assess- ment tool. The need for supervision (reflecting self-directedness) was assessed via post-dissection questionnaires.

RESULTS: The intervention group achieved a mean score of 22.9 points of a maximum of 44 points, which was 5.4% higher than the control group’s 21.8 points (P = .51). On average, the intervention group required assistance 1.3 times during cadaver drilling; this was 41% more frequent in the control group who received assistance 1.9 times (P = .21).

CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation virtual reality simulation training is feasible in the context of a cadaver dissection course. The addition of cochlear implantation virtual reality training to basic mastoidectomy virtual reality simulation training did not lead to a significant improvement of performance or self-directedness in this study. Our findings suggest that learning an advanced temporal bone procedure such as cochlear implantation surgery requires much more training than learning mastoidectomy.

Methods: An e-survey conducted among Young Otolaryngologists of the International Federation of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (Yo-IFOS) members.

Results: 139 Yo-IFOS members from 51 countries completed the survey. During residency training, 82.7% of respondents have used SBTST on cadavers, 51.8% on physical simulators, and 43.8% on virtual reality simulators. High costs (65.5%), lack of availability (49.2%) and lack of time (25.5%) were the main barriers limiting the practice of SBTST. These barriers also limited teaching using simulation. Sinonasal surgery (72.7%), temporal bone surgery (67.6%), and head/neck surgery (44.6%) were significantly more frequently taught using SBTST than suspension microlaryngoscopy (25.9%) and pediatric surgery (22.3%) (p < 0.001). The procedures rated as the most important to learn through SBTST were tracheotomy (50.4%), emergency cricothyroidotomy (48.9%), and rigid bronchoscopy (47.5%). On an analogic visual scale (0-100) for the question “how important will simulation be for future ENTs in surgical training?”, the mean score was 79.5/100 (± 23.3), highlighting the positive attitude toward the use of SBTST in otorhinolaryngology training.

Conclusion: SBTST is an attractive learning and teaching method in otorhinolaryngology, but associated costs, lack of access, and lack of time are the main barriers limiting its use. Emergency procedures are key technical skills to be learned using simulation but in some cases, lack relevant simulators for training.

Methods: Prospective, multi-institutional study. Preoperative temporal bone CBCT scans of patients undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) were retrospectively obtained. Automated processing and segmentation routines were used. Otologic surgeons performed a complete mastoidectomy with facial recess approach on the patient-specific virtual cases in the institution’s temporal bone simulator. Participants completed surveys regarding the perceived accuracy and utility of the simulation.

Results: Twenty-two clinical CBCTs were obtained. Four attending otologic surgeons and 5 otolaryngology trainees enrolled in the study. The mean number of simulations completed by each participant was 16.5 (range 3-22). “Overall experience” and “usefulness for presurgical planning” were rated as “good,” “very good,” or “excellent” in 84.6% and 71.6% of the simulations, respectively. In 10.7% of simulations, the surgeon reported to have gained a significantly greater understanding of the patient’s anatomy compared to standard imaging. Participants were able to better appreciate subtle anatomic findings after using the simulator for 60.4% of cases. Variable CBCT acquisition quality was the most reported limitation.

Conclusion: Patient-specific simulation using preoperative CBCT is feasible and may provide valuable insights prior to otologic surgery. Establishing a CBCT acquisition protocol that allows for consistent segmentation will be essential for reliable surgical simulation.

Methods: Following the PRISMA guideline, studies reporting on training and/or assessment of handheld otoscopy were identified searching the following databases: PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library, PloS Medicine, Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ), and Web of Science. Two reviewers extracted data on study design, training intervention, educational outcomes, and results. Quality of educational evidence was assessed along with classification according to Kirkpatrick’s model of educational outcomes.

Results: The searches yielded a total of 6064 studies with a final inclusion of 33 studies for the qualitative synthesis. Handheld otoscopy training could be divided into workshops, physical simulators, web-based training/e-learning, and smartphone-enabled otoscopy. Workshops were the most commonly described educational intervention and typically consisted of lectures, hands-on demonstrations, and training on peers. Almost all studies reported a favorable effect on either learner attitude, knowledge, or skills. The educational quality of the studies was reasonable but the educational outcomes were mostly evaluated on the lower Kirkpatrick levels with only a single study determining the effects of training on actual change in the learner behavior.

Conclusion: Overall, it seems that any systematic approach to training of handheld otoscopy is beneficial in training regardless of learner level, but the heterogeneity of the studies makes comparisons between studies difficult and the relative effect sizes of the interventions could not be determined.

Method: In June 2020, 11 databases, including PubMed, were searched from inception through May 31, 2020. Eligible studies included the use of G-theory to explore reliability in the context of assessment of medical and surgical technical skills. Descriptive information on study, assessment context, assessment protocol, participants being assessed, and G-analyses were extracted. Data were used to map G-theory and explore variance components analyses. A meta-analyses was conducted to synthesize the extracted data on the sources of variance and reliability.

Results: Forty-four studies were included; of these, 39 had sufficient data for meta-analysis. The total pool included 35,284 unique assessments of 31,496 unique performances of 4,154 participants. Person variance had a pooled effect of 44.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] [36.8%-51.5%]). Only assessment tool type (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills-type vs task-based checklist-type) had a significant effect on person variance. The pooled reliability (G-coefficient) was .65 (95% CI [.59-.70]). Most studies included D-studies (39, 89%) and generally seemed to have higher ratios of performances to assessors to achieve a sufficiently reliable assessment.

Conclusions: G-theory is increasingly being used to examine reliability of technical skills assessment in medical education but more rigor in reporting is warranted. Contextual factors can potentially affect variance components and thereby reliability estimates and should be considered, especially in high-stakes assessment. Reliability analysis should be a best practice when developing assessment of technical skills.

Background: The aim of this study was to design and validate a cross-specialty basic robotic surgical skills training program on the RobotiX Mentor virtual reality simulator.

Methods: A Delphi panel reached consensus on six modules to include in the training program. Validity evidence was collected according to Messick’s framework with three performances in each simulator module by 11 experienced robotic surgeons and 11 residents without robotic surgical experience.

Results: For five of the six modules, a compound metrics-based score could significantly discriminate between the performances of novices and experienced robotic surgeons. Pass/fail levels were established, resulting in very few novices passing in their first attempt.

Conclusions: This validated course can be used for structured simulation-based basic robotic surgical skills training within a mastery learning framework where the individual trainee can practice each module until they achieve proficiency and can continue training on other modalities and more specific to their specialty.

METHODS: A prospective, educational cohort study of a novice training program consisting of directed, self-regulated learning with distributed practice (5×3 procedures) in a virtual reality temporal bone simulator. The intervention consisted of structured self-assessment after each procedure using a rating form supported by small videos. Semi-structured telephone interviews upon completion of training were conducted with 13 out of 15 participants. Interviews were analysed using directed content analysis and triangulated with quantitative data on secondary task reaction time for cognitive load estimation and participants’ self-assessment scores.

RESULTS: Six major themes were identified in the interviews: goal-directed behaviour, use of learning supports for scaffolding of the training, cognitive engagement, motivation from self-assessment, self-assessment bias, and feedback on self-assessment (validation). Participants seemed to self-regulate their learning by forming individual sub-goals and strategies within the overall goal of the procedure. They scaffolded their learning through the available learning supports. Finally, structured self-assessment was reported to increase the participants’ cognitive engagement, which was further supported by a quantitative increase in cognitive load.

CONCLUSIONS: Structured self-assessment in simulation-based surgical training of mastoidectomy seems to promote cognitive engagement and motivation in the learning task and to facilitate self-regulated learning.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, controlled cohort study.

SETTING: Otorhinolaryngology (ORL) teaching hospitals and the Danish national TB course.

PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight ORL residents: 20 in the intervention cohort (decentralized training) and 18 in the control cohort (standard training during course).

INTERVENTION: Three months of access to decentralized VR simulation training at the local ORL department or the trainee’s home. A freeware VR simulator (the visible ear simulator [VES]) was used, supplemented by a range of learning supports for directed, self-regulated learning.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mastoidectomy final-product scores from the VR simulations and cadaver dissection were rated using a modified Welling Scale by blinded expert raters.

RESULTS: Participants in the intervention cohort trained decentrally a median of 3.5 hours and performed significantly better than the control cohort during VR simulation (p < 0.01), which importantly also transferred to a 76% higher performance score during subsequent cadaver training (mean scores: 8.8 versus 5.0 points; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Decentralized VR simulation training of mastoidectomy improves subsequent cadaver dissection performance and can potentially improve implementation of VR simulation surgical training.