Display options
Share it on

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Jul 31; doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab350. Epub 2021 Jul 31.

Recommendations for the use of coronary and valve simulators in cardiac surgical training: a systematic review.

European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery

George Whittaker, M Yousuf Salmasi, Abdullatif Aydin, Dimitris Magouliotis, Shahzad G Raja, George Asimakopoulos, Narain Moorjani, Thanos Athanasiou

Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
  2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
  3. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, London, UK.
  4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
  5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  6. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.

PMID: 34337649 DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab350

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically review the simulators that are currently available for coronary artery bypass graft and valve surgery and, in addition, to review the validation evidence supporting them and to recommend several simulators for training based on the analysis of results.

METHODS: A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE® (1946 to May 2021) and EMBASE® (1947 to May 2021) databases was performed to identify simulators for coronary artery and valvular procedures in cardiothoracic surgery. A selection of keywords and MeSH terms was used to execute the literature search. After identification of relevant articles, data were extracted and analysed.

RESULTS: Thirty-seven simulators were found in 31 articles. Simulators were found for coronary artery bypass graft (n = 24) and valve surgery (n = 13). The majority of models were either benchtop (n = 28) or hybrid (n = 8) modalities. Evidence of validity was demonstrated in 15 (40.5%) simulators. Twenty-two (59.5%) simulators had no validation evidence, and 1 (2.7%) simulator had 3 or more elements of validity established.

CONCLUSIONS: Two simulators were recommended for supplemental training in cardiothoracic surgery. Low-fidelity models can provide a broad foundation for surgical skills' development whereas high-fidelity simulators can be used for immersive training scenarios and appraisals. These should be utilized in early training, at which point the learning curve of trainees is steepest.

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Keywords: CABG; Coronary; Simulation; Simulators; Training; Valve

Publication Types