Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36(02): 142-150
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700523
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Multispecialty Microsurgical Course Utilizing the Blue-Blood Chicken Thigh Model Significantly Improves Resident Comfort, Confidence, and Attitudes in Multiple Domains

Nikita O. Shulzhenko‡   *
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Weifeng Zeng‡   *
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Nicholas J. Albano
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Sarah M. Lyon
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Aaron M. Wieland
2   Division of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Ashish Y. Mahajan
3   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota
4   Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Health Partners/Regions Hospital, Saint Paul, Minnesota
,
Daniel Williams
5   Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Michael L. Bentz
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Samuel O. Poore
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

19 March 2019

27 August 2019

Publication Date:
05 November 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The high level of technical skill required by microsurgical procedures has prompted the development of in vitro educational models. Current models are cost-ineffective, unrealistic, or carry ethical implications and are utilized as isolated experiences within single surgical specialties. The purpose of this study was to assess the educational and interprofessional effect of a microsurgical training course utilizing the nonliving “Blue-Blood” chicken thigh model (BBCTM) in a multidisciplinary environment.

Methods A 10-hour course was developed integrating didactic lectures, case presentations, and one-on-one practical sessions utilizing hydrogel microvessels and the BBCTM. Pre- and postcourse surveys were administered assessing participants' self-reported comfort and confidence within fundamental microsurgical domains, assessments of the models utilized, and the effects of a multidisciplinary environment on the experience.

Results A total of 19 residents attended the course on two separate occasions (n = 10 and n = 9, respectively). Respondents varied from postgraduate year-2 (PGY-2) to PGY-6+ and represented plastic and reconstructive surgery (n = 10), urology (n = 6), and otolaryngology (n = 3). On average, each participant performed 4.3 end-to-end, 1.3 end-to-side, and 0.4 coupler-assisted anastomoses. Following the course, participants felt significantly more comfortable operating a microscope and handling microsurgical instruments. They felt significantly more confident handling tissues, manipulating needles, microdissecting, performing end-to-end anastomoses, performing end-to-side anastomoses, using an anastomotic coupler, and declaring anastomoses suitable (all p < 0.05). The majority of participants believed that the use of live animals in the course would have minimally improved their learning. All but two respondents believed the course improved their awareness of the value of microsurgery in other specialties “very much” or “incredibly.”

Conclusion A microsurgical training course utilizing nonliving models such as the “BBCTM significantly improves resident comfort and confidence in core operative domains and offers an in vivo experience without the use of live animals. Multispecialty training experiences in microsurgery are beneficial, desired, and likely underutilized.

Keywords

simulation - education - survey

* These authors contributed equally to this paper.


Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Perez-Abadia G, Janko M, Pindur L. , et al. Frankfurt microsurgery course: the first 175 trainees. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2017; 43 (03) 377-386
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Jubbal KT, Chang D, Izaddoost SA, Pederson W, Zavlin D, Echo A. Resident involvement in microsurgery: an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis. J Surg Educ 2017; 74 (06) 1124-1132
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Jubbal KT, Echo A, Spiegel AJ, Izaddoost SA. The impact of resident involvement in breast reconstruction surgery outcomes by modality: an analysis of 4,500 cases. Microsurgery 2017; 37 (07) 800-807
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Hirche C, Kneser U, Xiong L. , et al. Microvascular free flaps are a safe and suitable training procedure during structured plastic surgery residency: a comparative cohort study with 391 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (05) 715-721
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 El Ahmadieh TY, Aoun SG, El Tecle NE. , et al. A didactic and hands-on module enhances resident microsurgical knowledge and technical skill. Neurosurgery 2013; 73 (Suppl. 01) 51-56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Cigna E, Bistoni G, Trignano E, Tortorelli G, Spalvieri C, Scuderi N. Microsurgical teaching: our experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2010; 63 (06) e529-e531
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Trignano E, Fallico N, Zingone G, Dessy LA, Campus GV. Microsurgical training with the three-step approach. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (02) 87-91
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Demirseren ME, Tosa Y, Hosaka Y. Microsurgical training with surgical gauze: the first step. J Reconstr Microsurg 2003; 19 (06) 385-386
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Brosious JP, Tsuda ST, Menezes JM. , et al. Objective evaluation of skill acquisition in novice microsurgeons. J Reconstr Microsurg 2012; 28 (08) 539-542
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Leclère FM, Trelles M, Lewbart GA, Vögelin E. Is there good simulation basic training for end-to-side vascular microanastomoses?. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37 (02) 454-458
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Prunières GJ, Taleb C, Hendriks S. , et al. Use of the Konnyaku Shirataki noodle as a low fidelity simulation training model for microvascular surgery in the operating theatre. Chir Main 2014; 33 (02) 106-111
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Belykh E, Lei T, Safavi-Abbasi S. , et al. Low-flow and high-flow neurosurgical bypass and anastomosis training models using human and bovine placental vessels: a histological analysis and validation study. J Neurosurg 2016; 125 (04) 915-928
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Allouni A, Amer T, Ismail M, Ismail T. The human umbilical cord: a model for microsurgical training. J Hand Microsurg 2014; 6 (02) 110-112
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Cooper L, Sindali K, Srinivasan K, Jones M, Nugent N. Developing a three-layered synthetic microsurgical simulation vessel. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (01) 15-21
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Atlan M, Lellouch AG, Legagneux J, Chaouat M, Masquelet AC, Letourneur D. A new synthetic model for microvascular anastomosis training? A randomized comparative study between silicone and polyvinyl alcohol gelatin tubes. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (01) 182-187
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Willis RE, Wiersch J, Adams AJ, Al Fayyadh MJ, Weber RA, Wang HT. Development and evaluation of a simulation model for microvascular anastomosis training. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (07) 493-501
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Evgeniou E, Walker H, Gujral S. The role of simulation in microsurgical training. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (01) 171-181
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Creighton FX, Feng AL, Goyal N, Emerick K, Deschler D. Chicken thigh microvascular training model improves resident surgical skills. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2017; 2 (06) 471-474
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Schoeff S, Hernandez B, Robinson DJ, Jameson MJ, Shonka DC. Microvascular anastomosis simulation using a chicken thigh model: interval versus massed training. Laryngoscope 2017; 127 (11) 2490-2494
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Nimmons GL, Chang KE, Funk GF, Shonka DC, Pagedar NA. Validation of a task-specific scoring system for a microvascular surgery simulation model. Laryngoscope 2012; 122 (10) 2164-2168
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Costa AL, Cucinotta F, Fazio A. , et al. Anterolateral thigh flap in a chicken model: a novel perforator training model. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (07) 485-488
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Marsh DJ, Norton SE, Mok J, Patel HD, Chen H-C. Microsurgical training: the chicken thigh model. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 59 (03) 355-356
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 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 (07) 973-978
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Zeng W, Shulzhenko NO, Feldman CC, Dingle AM, Poore SO. “Blue-Blood”- infused chicken thigh training model for microsurgery and supermicrosurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (04) e1695
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Hanrahan J, Sideris M, Pasha T. , et al. Hands train the brain-what is the role of hand tremor and anxiety in undergraduate microsurgical skills?. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2018; 160 (09) 1673-1679
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Fargen KM, Turner RD, Spiotta AM. Factors that affect physiologic tremor and dexterity during surgery: a primer for neurosurgeons. World Neurosurg 2016; 86: 384-389
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Miller R. Let's discuss surgical performance anxiety. Clin Teach 2019; 16 (01) 74-75
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Rui M, Lee JE, Vauthey JN, Conrad C. Enhancing surgical performance by adopting expert musicians' practice and performance strategies. Surgery 2018; 163 (04) 894-900
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Fillmore WJ, Teeples TJ, Cha S, Viozzi CF, Arce K. Chief resident case experience and autonomy are associated with resident confidence and future practice plans. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 71 (02) 448-461
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 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 (01) 80-89
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Rostom M, Lam WL. Microsurgery fellowships-development of a clinical curriculum. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34 (02) 145-150
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Brosious JP, Kleban SR, Goldman JJ. , et al. Ahead of the curve: tracking progress in novice microsurgeons. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (03) 216-220
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Ortiz R, Sood RF, Wilkens S, Gottlieb R, Chen NC, Eberlin KR. Longitudinal microsurgery laboratory training during hand surgery fellowship. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Temple CL, Ross DC. A new, validated instrument to evaluate competency in microsurgery: the University of Western Ontario Microsurgical Skills Acquisition/Assessment instrument [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (01) 215-222
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Nugent E, Joyce C, Perez-Abadia G. , et al. Factors influencing microsurgical skill acquisition during a dedicated training course. Microsurgery 2012; 32 (08) 649-656
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Aoun SG, El Ahmadieh TY, El Tecle NE. , et al. A pilot study to assess the construct and face validity of the Northwestern Objective Microanastomosis Assessment Tool. J Neurosurg 2015; 123 (01) 103-109
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar