# Efficacy of an Abdominal Surgery Simulator in Didactic Medical Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial

## TL;DR

A low-cost abdominal surgery simulator was tested in medical training but did not significantly improve exam scores, though it provided valuable learning experiences.

## Contribution

A low-cost abdominal surgery simulator was developed and tested for pre-clinical medical education.

## Key findings

- The simulator did not significantly improve post-assessment scores compared to traditional methods.
- Students using the simulator gained exposure to surgical and anatomical concepts.
- Future plans include integrating the simulator into pre-clinical education and evaluating its impact during surgical rotations.

## Abstract

Introduction

Many medical students do not have access to hands-on surgical experience throughout the pre-clinical curriculum. To address this issue, we developed a low-cost abdominal surgery simulator for use during instructive years and tested its efficacy through a proof-of-concept, randomized controlled trial. Our goal is to help medical students integrate foundational anatomy with surgical pathology, enhancing their understanding and translating to academic success on board-relevant topics.

Methods

Second-year students at Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine-Carolinas Campus (VCOM-CC) were split into two groups. The control group utilized the traditional curriculum, while the experimental group used the curriculum along with the simulator in instructive and integrative sessions. We created pre- and post-assessments comprised of gastrointestinal anatomy relevant to United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 1 medical licensing examinations and compared the groups’ outcomes using statistical analysis.

Results

Statistical analysis was performed on the average change between the pre-assessment and post-assessment scores. This trial revealed an average change of -0.267, a standard deviation of 3.90 for the experimental group (n = 15), and an average change of -1.375, a standard deviation of 2.93 for the control group (n = 16). A two-sample t-test at 95% confidence interval yielded a p-value of 0.3246.

Conclusion

Although this trial did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the average score change, the increased exposure to both surgical and anatomical concepts provides a relevant learning experience for students before their clinical curriculum. In the future, we aim to integrate our simulator into pre-clinical medical education. Furthermore, we plan to evaluate the impact of our simulator on the performance of the two groups during surgical rotations as part of our ongoing research.