Bridging the gap: A scoping review of wet and dry lab simulation training in orthopaedic surgical education

Table 1 Comparison of wet and dry labs in orthopaedic surgery training

Aspect	Wet lab	Dry lab	Ideal learner stage
Tissue/model type	Human cadavers, animal tissue, or high-fidelity synthetic specimens	Synthetic bone models, computer-assisted simulators, virtual/augmented reality	Junior trainees (dry lab) progressing to senior trainees (wet lab)
Cost	High-cadaver procurement, animal tissue, single-use instruments, facilities	Lower-reusable synthetic models and scalable VR platforms	Dry labs ideal for early exposure in resource-limited settings
Tactile feedback	Excellent-realistic anatomical variation and soft tissue fidelity	Limited, though improving with haptics and force-feedback systems	Wet labs best for refining advanced skills requiring force precision
Accessibility	Restricted by cadaver availability, regulations, and infrastructure	Widely accessible, portable, and scalable across institutions	Dry labs suitable for frequent, repetitive practice early in training
Skill transfer	High-closely mirrors real surgical conditions and operating room workflow	Moderate-strong for basic/intermediate tasks; uncertain for complex skills	Dry labs build foundations; wet labs consolidate advanced readiness
Learner preference	Favoured by senior residents and fellows for complex, high-stakes procedures	Favoured by medical students and junior residents for early skill acquisition	Hybrid model aligns with progression from novice to advanced learner

VR: Virtual reality.