A comparison of commercially available synthetic skin substitutes for surgical simulation training.

Awad, Laura; Langridge, Benjamin J.; Jeon, Faith H. K.; Bollen, Edward; Butler, Peter E. M.

Objective: Simulation training provides an important opportunity to accelerate surgical skills acquisition whilst safeguarding patients. This study compares the suitability of different synthetic skin substitutes for use in surgical simulation training. Design: Data was collected for eight commercially available synthetic skin substitutes and included cost, delivery time, subjective assessment of fidelity by surgeons and trainees, and objective comparison with the biomechanics of human skin was made through cutometry and durometry measurements. Cutometry and durometry data was collected from three healthy adults from the forearm, forehead and back, with measurements being repeated in triplicate. Subjective assessment of skin pad quality was collected using an 8-criteria questionnaire, graded using a 5-point Likert scale for fidelity to normal skin. Results: The questionnaire assessment was completed by 30 trainees and practitioners. Overall, felt pads received the poorest outcomes in all criteria; cutometry and durometry results demonstrate poor similarity to skin, and felt received the lowest scores in the questionnaire, although the cheapest. Foam dressings were similar in both cutometric and durometric properties to skin of the face, back and arm. Clinical outcomes of foam dressings were similar to the most expensive commercial skin pad. Conclusions: Bilaminar foam-based dressings provide a low cost, high fidelity non-biological simulation of skin for surgical training, which is non-inferior to more expensive specifically designed products. Many products designed to act as skin substitutes for surgical simulation fail to adequately replicate the anatomical and mechanical properties of skin.

HUMAN mechanics; BIOLOGICAL dressings; LIKERT scale; PRODUCT design; DISTANCE education; FOAM

GMS Journal for Medical Education, 2023, Vol 40, Issue 5, p1

2366-5017

Academic Journal

10.3205/zma001644