David A McClusky1, C Daniel Smith. 1. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32224, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of significant changes have forced surgical educators to re-evaluate the adequacy of traditional forms of surgical skills training. MATERIALS: A review of the literature reveals that surgical simulation has emerged as a useful adjunct to help educators adjust to the demands of an ever-changing surgical practice environment. As such, integration of simulation technology into a busy surgical training program has now become a priority for training programs worldwide. RESULTS: Successful integration requires a disciplined and dedicated approach to the appropriate use of all forms of available simulation in a well-designed curriculum. CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides a discussion of how this can be achieved using a sequential, modular, criterion-based framework, providing details of the rationale behind such an approach and current examples of how it can be integrated.
BACKGROUND: A number of significant changes have forced surgical educators to re-evaluate the adequacy of traditional forms of surgical skills training. MATERIALS: A review of the literature reveals that surgical simulation has emerged as a useful adjunct to help educators adjust to the demands of an ever-changing surgical practice environment. As such, integration of simulation technology into a busy surgical training program has now become a priority for training programs worldwide. RESULTS: Successful integration requires a disciplined and dedicated approach to the appropriate use of all forms of available simulation in a well-designed curriculum. CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides a discussion of how this can be achieved using a sequential, modular, criterion-based framework, providing details of the rationale behind such an approach and current examples of how it can be integrated.
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rajesh Aggarwal; Teodor P Grantcharov; Jens R Eriksen; Dorthe Blirup; Viggo B Kristiansen; Peter Funch-Jensen; Ara Darzi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gunnar Ahlberg; Lars Enochsson; Anthony G Gallagher; Leif Hedman; Christian Hogman; David A McClusky; Stig Ramel; C Daniel Smith; Dag Arvidsson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Anthony G Gallagher; C Daniel Smith; Steven P Bowers; Neal E Seymour; Adam Pearson; Steven McNatt; David Hananel; Richard M Satava Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: J B Pagador; L F Sánchez; J A Sánchez; P Bustos; J Moreno; F M Sánchez-Margallo Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: J B Pagador; F M Sánchez-Margallo; L F Sánchez-Peralta; J A Sánchez-Margallo; J L Moyano-Cuevas; S Enciso-Sanz; J Usón-Gargallo; J Moreno Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2011-08-14 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Osman Cem Yilmaz; Nuh Zafer Cantürk; Abut Kebudi; Sertaç Ata Güler; Ahmet Erkek; Mahdi Rezai; Bahadir M Güllüoğlu Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.037