A comparison between artificial and cadaveric temporal bones in terms of providing realistic setting and structural details
Reviewed by Madhup K Chaurasia

Increasing difficulties, costs and risks of infection have led to the use of artificial temporal bones for training in mastoid and middle ear surgery. Whether these provide a realistic learning environment (face value) and offer structural details to learn from (content) is the subject of this study through questionnaires completed by both experts and trainees in the field. Thirty-three respondents replied. Cadaveric dissection experience provided better approximation to a real patient in an operating theatre and in terms of feedback. Artificial bone dissection proved equal or better for allowing non-threatening practice, setting clearer goals, better control of the level of difficulty, integration into the training curriculum, facilitating repetition and being more adaptable to different teaching methods. In the artificial bones, the mastoid architecture appeared extremely realistic, but this was not the case with soft tissues and facial nerve presentations for learning. More experienced surgeons did not see the same realism in artificial bones compared to cadaveric ones. The study concludes that artificial bones are at least equivalent to cadaveric ones and could form a valid substitute in surgical training. The shortcomings, such as delivery of feedback and difficulties in learning soft tissue aspects of the surgery, can be easily overcome by modifications and augmentations in the teaching programmes.

Face and content validation of artificial temporal bone dissection for otolaryngology training.
Kurichiyil SH, Whittaker JD, Dalton CL.
J LARYNGOL OTOL
2025;139(6):451–7.