Claims

Trainees rated fresh-frozen body donors significantly superior to live porcine models for port placement and anatomy realism, while rating the porcine model better on tissue quality, air leak and odour

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? In the Wyles comparison, FFBDs were rated significantly superior for realistic port placement and anatomy, but the porcine model was rated significantly better for tissue quality, persistence of air leak and odour disturbance. → Pinar Sedat Alp 2025

Evidence

Pinar Sedat Alp 2025

Pinar Sedat Alp, Morrow Joseph J., Kong Chia Yew. (2025). A systematic review of the use of human body donor models for postgraduate laparoscopic surgical training. Anatomical Science International. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-025-00872-z

q2 · i? · review · r3

Comparative study synthesised by the review (Wyles et al. 2011; 66 body donor and 37 porcine model participants per its table) comparing FFBD and live anaesthetised porcine models for colorectal surgery training. Both directions of the significant difference are reported; no effect size printed.

"The participants rated the FFBD model significantly superior for realistic simulation for port placement and anatomy on the five-point Likert scale. Trainees, however, rated the porcine model significantly better in terms of tissue quality, persistence of air leak, disturbance by odour."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.