Analysis of 10-Year Training Results of Medical Students Using the Microvascular Research Center Training Program

Abstract

Background In this article, we reviewed the training results of medical students using the Microvascular Research Center Training Program (MRCP), and proposed an ideal microsurgical training program for all individuals by analyzing the training results of medical students who did not have any surgical experience.

Methods As of 2015, a total of 29 medical students completed the MRCP. In the most recent 12 medical students, the number of trials performed for each training stage and the number of rats needed to complete the training were recorded. Additionally, we measured the operating time upon finishing stage 5 for the recent six medical students after it became a current program.

Results The average operating time upon finishing stage 5 for the recent six medical students was 120 minutes ± 11 minutes (standard deviation [SD]). The average vascular anastomosis time (for the artery and vein) was 52 minutes ± 2 minutes (SD). For the most recent 12 medical students, there was a negative correlation between the number of trials performed in the non-rat stages (stages 1–3) and the number of rats used in the rat stages (stages 4–5).

Conclusion Analysis of the training results of medical students suggests that performing microsurgery first on silicon tubes and chicken wings saves animals' lives later during the training program. We believe that any person can learn the technique of microsurgery by performing 7 to 8 hours of training per day over a period of 15 days within this program setting.

Keywords

microsurgery - training program - medical student

• References

• 1 Tamai S. Twenty years' experience of limb replantation—review of 293 upper extremity replants. J Hand Surg Am 1982; 7 (6) 549-556
• 2 Harii K, Omori S. Use of the gastroepiploic vessels as recipient or donor vessels in the free transfer of composite flaps by microvascular anastomoses. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973; 52 (5) 541-548
• 3 Koshima I, Inagawa K, Urushibara K, Moriguchi T. Supermicrosurgical lymphaticovenular anastomosis for the treatment of lymphedema in the upper extremities. J Reconstr Microsurg 2000; 16 (6) 437-442
• 4 Chang DW. Lymphaticovenular bypass for lymphedema management in breast cancer patients: a prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (3) 752-758
• 5 Onoda S, Todokoro T, Hara H, Azuma S, Goto A. Minimally invasive multiple lymphaticovenular anastomosis at the ankle for the prevention of lower leg lymphedema. Microsurgery 2014; 34 (5) 372-376
• 6 Shah A, Rowlands M, Patel A, Fusi S, Salomon J. Ubersense: using a free video analysis app to evaluate and improve microsurgical skills. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (2) 338e-339e
• 7 Satterwhite T, Son J, Carey J , et al. The Stanford Microsurgery and Resident Training (SMaRT) Scale: validation of an on-line global rating scale for technical assessment. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 72 (Suppl. 01) S84-S88
• 8 Taylor NW, Webb K, Neumeister MW, Bueno Jr RA. Assessment of resident microsurgical skill using an online video system. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (1) 78e-79e
• 9 Komatsu S, Yamada K, Yamashita S , et al. Evaluation of the microvascular research center training program for assessing microsurgical skills in trainee surgeons. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40 (3) 214-219
• 10 Mücke T, Borgmann A, Ritschl LM, Kesting MR, Loeffelbein DJ, Wolff KD. Microvascular training of medical students and surgeons - a comparative prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41 (8) e187-e190
• 11 Zhang F, Chin BT, Ho PR, Costa MA, Lineaweaver WC, Buncke HJ. Rat tail replantation as a training model for microvascular procedures of digit replantation. Microsurgery 1998; 18 (6) 364-367
• 12 Kim DC, Hayward PG, Morrison WA. Training model for microvessel anastomosis. Microsurgery 1994; 15 (11) 820-821
• 13 Jeong HS, Moon MS, Kim HS, Lee HK, Yi SY. Microsurgical training with fresh chicken legs. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70 (1) 57-61
• 14 Couceiro J, Ozyurekoglu T, Sanders S, Tien H. Microsurgical training regimen with nonliving chicken models. Microsurgery 2013; 33 (3) 251-252
• 15 Chen WF, Eid A, Yamamoto T, Keith J, Nimmons GL, Lawrence WT. A novel supermicrosurgery training model: the chicken thigh. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (7) 973-978
• 16 Ramachandran S, Chui CH, Tan BK. The chicken aorta as a simulation-training model for microvascular surgery training. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40 (4) 327-329
• 17 Satterwhite T, Son J, Echo A, Lee G. The chicken foot dorsal vessel as a high-fidelity microsurgery practice model. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (2) 311e-312e
• 18 Bates BJ, Wimalawansa SM, Monson B, Rymer MC, Shapiro R, Johnson RM. A simple cost-effective method of microsurgical simulation training: the turkey wing model. J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29 (9) 615-618
• 19 Dumestre D, Yeung JK, Temple-Oberle C. Evidence-based microsurgical skill-acquisition series part 1: validated microsurgical models—a systematic review. J Surg Educ 2014; 71 (3) 329-338
• 20 Dumestre D, Yeung JK, Temple-Oberle C. Evidence-based microsurgical skills acquisition series part 2: validated assessment instruments—a systematic review. J Surg Educ 2015; 72 (1) 80-89
• 21 Wallmichrath J, Baumeister RG, Gottschalk O, Giunta RE, Frick A. The free groin flap in the rat: a model for improving microsurgical skills and for microvascular perfusion studies. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2014; 48 (3) 191-196
• 22 Patel A, Shah A, Ahmad U, Indes J, Persing J. Low-cost simulation plank for microsurgical success. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (5) 889e-890e
• 23 Selber JC, Chang EI, Liu J , et al. Tracking the learning curve in microsurgical skill acquisition. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (4) 550e-557e
• 24 Nam SM, Shin HS, Kim YB, Park ES, Choi CY. Microsurgical training with porcine thigh infusion model. J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29 (5) 303-306