J Hand Microsurg 2016; 08(01): 017-020
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1581124
Original Article
Society of Indian Hand & Microsurgeons

A Novel Perforator Flap Training Model Using a Chicken Leg

Ignacio J. Cifuentes
1   Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
Ricardo A. Yañez
1   Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
Maria C. Salisbury
1   Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
José R. Rodriguez
1   Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
Julian E. Varas
2   Experimental Surgery and Simulation Center, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
Bruno L. Dagnino
1   Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

29 January 2016

09 March 2016

Publication Date:
27 April 2016 (online)

Abstract

Introduction Living animal models are frequently used for perforator flap dissection training, but no ex vivo models have been described. The aim of this study is to present a novel nonliving model for perforator flap training based on a constant perforator in the chicken leg.

Methods A total of 15 chicken legs were used in this study. Anatomical dissection of the perforator was performed after its identification using ink injection, and in four of these specimens a perforator-based flap was raised.

Results The anatomical dissection revealed a constant intramuscular perforator with a median length of 5.7 cm. Median proximal and distal vessel diameters were 0.93 and 0.4 mm, respectively. The median dissection time was 77.5 minutes.

Conclusion This study introduces a novel, affordable, and reproducible model for the intramuscular dissection of a perforator-based flap using an ex vivo animal model. Its consistent perforator and appropriate-sized vessels make it useful for training.

 
  • References

  • 1 Wei FC, Jain V, Suominen S, Chen HC. Confusion among perforator flaps: what is a true perforator flap?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107 (3) 874-876
  • 2 Blondeel PN, Van Landuyt KH, Monstrey SJ , et al. The “Gent” consensus on perforator flap terminology: preliminary definitions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112 (5) 1378-1383 , quiz 1383, 1516, discussion 1384–1387
  • 3 Ilie VG, Ilie VI, Dobreanu C, Ghetu N, Luchian S, Pieptu D. Training of microsurgical skills on nonliving models. Microsurgery 2008; 28 (7) 571-577
  • 4 Blondeel PN. Technical Aspects of Perforator Dissection. In: Blondeel PN, Morris SF, Hallock GG, Neligan PC, eds. Perforator Flaps: Anatomy, Technique & Clinical Applications. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishers; 2013: 137-138
  • 5 Grinsell DG, McCoubrey GW, Finkemeyer JP. The Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Learning Curve in the Current Era. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (1) 72-77
  • 6 Hallock GG. Is there a “learning curve” for muscle perforator flaps?. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60 (2) 146-149
  • 7 Mei J, Yin Z, Zhang J , et al. A mini pig model for visualization of perforator flap by using angiography and MIMICS. Surg Radiol Anat 2010; 32 (5) 477-484
  • 8 Kayano S, Nakagawa M, Nagamatsu S, Koizumi T, Akazawa S. Why not perforator flap training models in rats?. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (2) e134-e135
  • 9 Hallock GG, Rice DC. Cranial epigastric perforator flap: a rat model of a true perforator flap. Ann Plast Surg 2003; 50 (4) 393-397
  • 10 Rodríguez A, Alvarez A, Aguirrezabalaga J, Martelo F. The anteromedial thigh flap as a training model of a perforator flap in rat. J Reconstr Microsurg 2007; 23 (5) 251-255
  • 11 Nistor A, Jiga L, Georgescu D , et al. Abstract 39: the pig as an ideal training model for perforator flap dissection in living tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (3 Suppl): 49
  • 12 Ardelean F, Chiroiu B, Georgescu A, Petcu S, Papuc I, Lacătuş R. Perforator flap in pig experimental study with applications in reconstructive surgery. Cluj Veterinary Journal 2009; 15 (1) 57-62
  • 13 Couceiro J, Ozyurekoglu T, Sanders S, Tien H. Microsurgical training regimen with nonliving chicken models. Microsurgery 2013; 33 (3) 251-252
  • 14 Hino A. Training in microvascular surgery using a chicken wing artery. Neurosurgery 2003; 52 (6) 1495-1497 , discussion 1497–1498
  • 15 Funatsu MK, Esteban D, Junior AH, Hoyos MB. New training model for reconstructive microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (2) 692-694
  • 16 Okşar HS, Coşkunfirat OK, Ozgentaş HE. Perforator-based flap in rats: a new experimental model. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108 (1) 125-131
  • 17 Hong JP. The use of supermicrosurgery in lower extremity reconstruction: the next step in evolution. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (1) 230-235
  • 18 Hong JP, Koshima I. Using perforators as recipient vessels (supermicrosurgery) for free flap reconstruction of the knee region. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 64 (3) 291-293
  • 19 Phoon AF, Gumley GJ, Rtshiladze MA. Microsurgical training using a pulsatile membrane pump and chicken thigh: a new, realistic, practical, nonliving educational model. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (5) 278e-279e
  • 20 Schoffl H, Hager D, Hinterdorfer C , et al. Pulsatile perfused porcine coronary arteries for microvascular training. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (2) 213-216