Impact of High-Fidelity Microvascular Surgery Simulation on Resident Training

Abstract

Background Microsurgery requires a high level of skill achieved only through repeated practice. With duty-hour restrictions and supervision requirements, trainees require more opportunities for practice outside the operating room. Studies show simulation training improves knowledge and skills. While numerous microvascular simulation models exist, virtually all lack the combination of human tissue and pulsatile flow.

Methods The authors utilized a novel simulation platform incorporating cryopreserved human vein and a pulsatile flow circuit for microsurgery training at two academic centers. Subjects performed a standardized simulated microvascular anastomosis and repeated this task at subsequent training sessions. Each session was evaluated using pre- and postsimulation surveys, standardized assessment forms, and the time required to complete each anastomosis. Outcomes of interest include change in self-reported confidence scores, skill assessment scores, and time to complete the task.

Results In total, 36 simulation sessions were recorded including 21 first attempts and 15 second attempts. Pre- and postsimulation survey data across multiple attempts demonstrated a statistically significant increase in self-reported confidence scores. Time to complete the simulation and skill assessment scores improved with multiple attempts; however, these findings were not statistically significant. Subjects unanimously reported on postsimulation surveys that the simulation was beneficial in improving their skills and confidence.

Conclusion The combination of human tissue and pulsatile flow results in a simulation experience that approaches the level of realism achieved with live animal models. This allows plastic surgery residents to improve microsurgical skills and increase confidence without the need for expensive animal laboratories or any undue risk to patients.

Keywords

simulation training - microvascular - pulsatile flow

Note

This study was presented at the Plastic Surgery the Meeting Virtual 2020 on October 18, 2020.

Funding

None.

Publication History

Received: 11 March 2023

Accepted: 08 June 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
14 June 2023

Article published online:
03 August 2023

• References

• 1 Kania K, Chang DK, Abu-Ghname A. et al. Microsurgery training in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (07) e2898
• 2 Kim SC, Fisher JG, Delman KA, Hinman JM, Srinivasan JK. Cadaver-based simulation increases resident confidence, initial exposure to fundamental techniques, and may augment operative autonomy. J Surg Educ 2016; 73 (06) e33-e41
• 3 Rodriguez JR, Yañez R, Cifuentes I, Varas J, Dagnino B. Microsurgery workout: a novel simulation training curriculum based on nonliving models. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (04) 739e-747e
• 4 Fletcher B, De La Ree J, Drougas J. Development of a pulsatile, tissue-based, versatile vascular surgery simulation laboratory for resident training. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech 2017; 3 (04) 209-213
• 5 Selber JC, Chang EI, Liu J. et al. Tracking the learning curve in microsurgical skill acquisition. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (04) 550e-557e
• 6 Chan W-Y, Matteucci P, Southern SJ. Validation of microsurgical models in microsurgery training and competence: a review. Microsurgery 2007; 27 (05) 494-499
• 7 Chan W, Niranjan N, Ramakrishnan V. Structured assessment of microsurgery skills in the clinical setting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (08) 1329-1334
• 8 Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R. et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2011; 306 (09) 978-988
• 9 Eșanu V, Stoia AI, Dindelegan GC, Colosi HA, Dindelegan MG, Volovici V. Reduction of the number of live animals used for microsurgical skill acquisition: an experimental randomized noninferiority trial. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (08) 604-612
• 10 Mueller MA, Pourtaheri N, Evans GRD. Microsurgery training resource variation among US integrated plastic surgery residency programs. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (03) 176-181
• 11 Beris A, Kostas-Agnantis I, Gkiatas I, Gatsios D, Fotiadis D, Korompilias A. Microsurgery training: a combined educational program. Injury 2020; 51 (Suppl. 04) S131-S134
• 12 Javid P, Aydın A, Mohanna PN, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Current status of simulation and training models in microsurgery: a systematic review. Microsurgery 2019; 39 (07) 655-668
• 13 Evgeniou E, Walker H, Gujral S. The Role of simulation in microsurgical training. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (01) 171-181
• 14 Chen J, Xun H, Abousy M, Long C, Sacks JM. No microscope? No problem: a systematic review of microscope-free microsurgery training models. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (02) 106-114
• 15 Ortiz R, Sood RF, Wilkens S, Gottlieb R, Chen NC, Eberlin KR. Longitudinal microsurgery laboratory training during hand surgery fellowship. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (09) 640-645
• 16 Fanua SP, Kim J, Shaw Wilgis EF. Alternative model for teaching microsurgery. Microsurgery 2001; 21 (08) 379-382
• 17 McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 2007; 21 (03) 244-247
• 18 Van Nortwick SS, Lendvay TS, Jensen AR, Wright AS, Horvath KD, Kim S. Methodologies for establishing validity in surgical simulation studies. Surgery 2010; 147 (05) 622-630