Leu et al: Structured assessment of a cadaveric orthopedic surgical training program of small animal surgeons in training: A prospective observational pilot study
Veterinary Surgery 3, 2026

Structured assessment of a cadaveric orthopedic surgical training program of small animal surgeons in training: A prospective observational pilot study

🔍 Key Findings

  • Structured cadaveric training significantly improved surgical technical skills with expert OSATS scores increasing from 17/35 to 23/35 (p = .001)
  • Self-assessment scores also improved significantly from 17/35 to 25/35 (p = .018), indicating perceived skill progression
  • Inter-assessor agreement was variable (κ = 0.04–0.65), with only moderate–substantial agreement between two of three experts
  • Agreement between self-assessment and expert assessment was poor (κ ≈ 0), highlighting inaccurate self-perception
  • Residents demonstrated better self-assessment accuracy than interns, suggesting experience improves insight into performance
  • Training program included multimodal structure (supervised sessions, self-directed practice, and one-on-one feedback), totaling ~45.8 hours over 3 months
  • OSATS GRS effectively detected skill improvement but has limitations in reliability, particularly due to subjective categories and lack of procedural specificity
  • Structured cadaver training is feasible and beneficial for residency programs, supporting integration into surgical curricula

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

Leu et al: Structured assessment of a cadaveric orthopedic surgical training program of small animal surgeons in training: A prospective observational pilot study
Veterinary Surgery 3, 2026

🔍 Key Findings

  • Structured cadaveric training significantly improved surgical technical skills with expert OSATS scores increasing from 17/35 to 23/35 (p = .001)
  • Self-assessment scores also improved significantly from 17/35 to 25/35 (p = .018), indicating perceived skill progression
  • Inter-assessor agreement was variable (κ = 0.04–0.65), with only moderate–substantial agreement between two of three experts
  • Agreement between self-assessment and expert assessment was poor (κ ≈ 0), highlighting inaccurate self-perception
  • Residents demonstrated better self-assessment accuracy than interns, suggesting experience improves insight into performance
  • Training program included multimodal structure (supervised sessions, self-directed practice, and one-on-one feedback), totaling ~45.8 hours over 3 months
  • OSATS GRS effectively detected skill improvement but has limitations in reliability, particularly due to subjective categories and lack of procedural specificity
  • Structured cadaver training is feasible and beneficial for residency programs, supporting integration into surgical curricula

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Know What Matters in the Literature - and Why

We distill peer-reviewed surgical studies into clinically relevant summaries and
exam-style questions, so you can make informed decisions with confidence.

Free Access. No Spam. Just Smarter Surgical Learning

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Leu 2026 et al., on cadaver training outcomes, what was the median improvement in expert OSATS GRS scores after training?

A. Increased from 10/35 to 20/35
B. Increased from 15/35 to 18/35
C. Increased from 17/35 to 23/35
D. Increased from 20/35 to 30/35
E. No significant change observed

Answer: Increased from 17/35 to 23/35

Explanation: Expert scores improved significantly from 17 to 23 (p = .001), demonstrating training efficacy.
In Leu 2026 et al., on cadaver training outcomes, what was a key limitation of the OSATS GRS identified in the study?

A. It cannot detect changes in skill
B. It requires live animal use
C. It is entirely objective and reproducible
D. It includes subjective scoring categories
E. It cannot be applied to orthopedic surgery

Answer: It includes subjective scoring categories

Explanation: Subjectivity in categories like tissue handling limits reliability and interobserver agreement.
In Leu 2026 et al., on cadaver training outcomes, which statement best describes agreement between self-assessment and expert assessment?

A. Strong agreement (κ > 0.8)
B. Moderate agreement (κ ≈ 0.5)
C. Fair agreement (κ ≈ 0.3)
D. Slight to poor agreement (κ ≈ 0–0.18)
E. Perfect agreement (κ = 1)

Answer: Slight to poor agreement (κ ≈ 0–0.18)

Explanation: The study found poor correlation between self and expert scores, indicating inaccurate self-perception.
In Leu 2026 et al., on cadaver training outcomes, which group demonstrated more accurate self-assessment compared to expert evaluation?

A. Surgical interns
B. First-year students
C. Residents
D. Board-certified surgeons
E. No group showed accuracy

Answer: Residents

Explanation: Residents had higher agreement with expert scores, reflecting improved self-perception with experience.
In Leu 2026 et al., on cadaver training outcomes, which component was NOT part of the structured training program?

A. Six supervised training sessions
B. Weekly self-directed training
C. One-on-one feedback session
D. Live patient surgical procedures
E. Videotaped assessments

Answer: Live patient surgical procedures

Explanation: Training was cadaver-based only and did not include live surgical cases.

Access the full library of surgical summaries and exam-style questions.

Educational content developed independently and supported by Simini.

The maker of Simini Protect Lavage.

Something off with this article?
Tell us what needs fixing—drop your note below.
Thanks for flagging this!
We’ll review your note as soon as possible.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Anything to add to this article?
Know a finding or detail we missed? Share it below.
Thanks for the suggestion!
We’ll review it as soon as possible.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.