Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-dwch4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-24T21:11:49.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of a low-fidelity ear surgery simulator in a low-resource setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2017

K Luu ,
L Straatman ,
D Nakku ,
B Westerberg ,
N Carter  and
M Clark
K Luu
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
L Straatman
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
D Nakku
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Uganda
B Westerberg*
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
N Carter
Affiliation:
Institute of Audiology and Primary Ear Health Care, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
M Clark
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – ENT Surgery, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital and Nuffield Health Cheltenham Hospital, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Brian D Westerberg, BC Rotary Hearing and Balance Centre at St Paul's Hospital, 2600–1081 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada Fax: +1 604 806 8777 E-mail: BWesterberg@providencehealth.bc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The provision of healthcare education in developing countries is a complex problem that simulation has the potential to help. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a low-cost ear surgery simulator, the Ear Trainer.

Methods:

The Ear Trainer was assessed in two low-resource environments in Cambodia and Uganda. Participants were video-recorded performing four specific middle-ear procedures, and blindly scored using a validated measurement tool. Face validity, construct validity and objective learning were assessed.

Results:

The Ear Trainer provides a realistic representation of the ear. Construct validity assessment confirmed that experts performed better than novices. Participants displayed improvement in all tasks except foreign body removal, likely because of a ceiling effect.

Conclusion:

This study validates the Ear Trainer as a useful training tool for otological microsurgical skills in developing world settings.

Keywords

Global HealthEducationMedicalTeachingForeign BodiesTympanic MembraneMiddle Ear Ventilation

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 11 , November 2017 , pp. 1010 - 1016
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Volsky, PG, Hughley, BB, Pierce, SM, Kesser, BW. Construct validity of a simulator for myringotomy and ventilation tube insertion. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141:603–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Clifton, N, Klingmann, C, Khalil, H. Teaching otolaryngology skills through simulation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:949–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Abass, OA, Samuel, BO, Odufeko, GT. Medical simulation a tool yet untapped in most developing nations in Africa. Int J Comput Appl 2014;97:1–4 Google Scholar
4 Clark, M, Mitchell, J, Morris, J, Westerberg, B. An ear microsurgery trainer for low-resource settings. J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:S160 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Reznick, R, Regehr, G, MacRae, H, Martin, J, McCulloch, W. Testing technical skill via an innovative ‘bench station’ examination. Am J Surg 1997;173:226–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Javia, L, Deutsch, E. A systematic review of simulators in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:999–1011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Johnson, E. Surgical simulators and simulated surgeons: reconstituting medical practice and practitioners in simulations. Soc Stud Sci 2007;37:585–608 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Sewell, C, Morris, D, Blevins, NH, Dutta, S, Agrawal, S, Barbagli, F et al. Providing metrics and performance feedback in a surgical simulator. Comput Aided Surg 2008;13:63–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Tavakol, M, Mohagheghi, MA, Dennick, R. Assessing the skills of surgical residents using simulation. J Surg Edu 2008;65:77–83 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Aucar, JA, Groch, NR, Troxel, SA, Eubanks, SW. A review of surgical simulation with attention to validation methodology. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2005;15:82–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 McGaghie, WC, Issenberg, SB, Cohen, ER, Barsuk, JH, Wayne, DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med 2011;86:706–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Guadagnoli, M, Lee, T. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav 2010;36:212–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar