Prospective simulation cohort validates the SMART-VATS model for training lung resection skills in low-resource settings, indicating strong educational utility.
Background: Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality compared to open thoracotomy. However, access to structured VATS training remains limited, particularly in low-resource countries. We developed SMART-VATS (Simulation Model of an Affordable and Realistic Trainer for Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery), a low-cost hybrid simulation model to facilitate the early acquisition of fundamental lung resection VATS skills. Materials and methods: This prospective analytical feasibility simulation study evaluates the SMART-VATS model using ovine heart–lung blocks. Participants performed simulated uniportal or multiportal lobectomies in a hemi-thorax-shaped box-trainer. Primary outcomes focused on anatomical realism and feasibility via a 5-point Likert scale. Secondary metrics included expert-led performance assessments. Statistical analysis compared junior and senior cohorts to validate the model’s educational utility and haptic fidelity. Results: Seventy-four participants (51 residents and 23 seniors) completed 7 simulation sessions. The overall success rate was 77%, with no significant statistical disparity between seniority levels ( P = 0.558). Vascular injuries occurred in 16.2% of cases, primarily among juniors ( P = 0.32). Participants highly rated the model’s haptic feedback (94%), color-coded vascular identification (92%), and realism (90.3%), noting its close resemblance to actual surgical conditions. Although the absence of lymph nodes was noted, the SMART-VATS model was validated as an affordable (100%), reproducible (96%), and easy-to-prepare training tool (82%). Conclusions: Our study suggests that SMART-VATS is a feasible, affordable, and reproducible early-phase VATS training model. It provides a valuable foundational platform for lung-resection-skill acquisition, particularly in resource-limited environments. Further studies are required to validate objective skill transfer to clinical performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: