Utilizing In-Hospital Fabrication to Decrease Simulation Costs.

BACKGROUND: Two restrictive factors for surgical training through simulation, are the cost of and accessibility to materials and consoles for simulation models. Commercial surgical simulation models continue to maintain high prices with a wide range of fidelity levels. We believe that by utilizing in-house fabrication, these barriers can be decreased while maintaining and even improving the functionality of surgical simulation models as well as increase their individualization and customization. METHODS: By using a combination of digital and manual fabrication techniques such as 3D printing and basic mold making methods, we were able to create models equivalent to current commercial products by utilizing the first of its kind MakerHEALTH space and collaborating with our surgical simulation staff. We then compared our research and development, start-up, materials, operational, and labor costs to buying comparable commercial models with the simulation usage rates of our institution. RESULTS: We were able to decrease the costs of a 6 model simulation sample set (appendectomy, cholecystectomy, common bile duct exploration, ventral hernia, chest tube insertion, and suture pads) at our institution from $99,646.60 to $13,817.21 for a medical student laborer, $14,500.56 for a surgical resident laborer, $15,321.08 for a simulation staff laborer, and $18,984.48 for an attending physician laborer. CONCLUSION: We describe successful approaches for the creation of cost-effective and modular simulation models with the aim of decreasing the barriers to entry and improving surgical training and skills. These techniques make it financially feasible for learners to train during larger faculty-led workshops and on an individual basis, allowing for access to simulation at any time or place.

Development of a Low-cost, High-fidelity Skin Model for Suturing.

BACKGROUND: In a survey of students at our institution, suturing was the most desired workshop for simulation; however, cost, quality, and availability of skin pads is often prohibitive for suturing workshops. In-hospital fabrication may be utilized to manufacture noncommercial, high-fidelity, and low-cost simulation models. We describe the production, value, and face validation of our simulated skin model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an in-hospital fabrication laboratory, we have developed a model for skin and subcutaneous tissue. Our model uses a variety of commercially available materials to simulate the epidermis, dermis, subcutaneous fat, fascia, and muscle. A cost analysis was performed by comparing it with other commonly used commercial skin models. Expert surgeons assessed the material characteristics, durability, and overall quality of our model in comparison with other commercial models. RESULTS: The materials cost of our novel skin pad model was 30.9% of the mean cost of five different commonly used foam and silicone-based commercial skin models. This low-cost model is more durable than the commercial models, does not require skin pad holders, and is of higher fidelity than the commercial products. In addition to skin closure, our model may be used to simulate fascial closure or fasciotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Model creation using in-hospital workspaces is an effective strategy to decrease cost while improving quality of surgical simulation. Our methods for creation of an inexpensive and high-fidelity skin pad may be purposed for several soft tissue models.