Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33(09): 641-648
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1605378
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Comparison of Live Rat Femoral Artery Model with Intraoperative Microvascular Anastomosis

Mark V. Schaverien
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
,
Charles E. Butler
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
,
Hiroo Suami
2   Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Jun Liu
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
,
Jesse C. Selber
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

03 April 2017

18 June 2017

Publication Date:
14 August 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The live rat femoral artery model is the gold standard in high-fidelity simulation for microvascular anastomosis worldwide. Despite widespread use, there is a paucity of evidence for its validity. This study aims to determine the correlation between microvascular anastomosis in the live rat femoral artery model and clinical performance.

Methods Twenty-nine microsurgical fellows were included in the study. At the beginning and end of the 1-year fellowship, fellows were assessed performing arterial microvascular anastomoses in the laboratory in a live rat femoral artery model. Each procedure was digitally video recorded and blinded. Fellows were also assessed in the operating room at the beginning and end of training performing microvascular anastomoses in multiple free flap cases. Validated tools were used for assessment, and duration of procedure was also recorded. The results from the evaluations were compared and interfellow comparisons were performed.

Results At both the beginning and end of the fellowship, there was no significant correlation between clinical performance evaluations during operating room cases and laboratory evaluations. In the laboratory, higher performance scores were associated with faster times at both the beginning and end of the fellowship.

Conclusion Contrary to conventional wisdom, microsurgical skill in the live rat femoral artery model in the laboratory does not correlate with clinical performance in the operating room. This calls into question the utility of this model for training purposes. Further research is necessary to corroborate these results and potentially establish experimental models with greater validity and reliability.

Keywords

rat model - intraoperative evaluation - comparison - fellow - microsurgery
 

  • References

  • 1 Carrel A. La technique operatoire des anastomeses vasculaires et la transplatation des visceres (The operative technique of vascular anastomoses and the transplantation of viscera). Lyon Méd 1902; 98: 859-863
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nicholas RS, Madada-Nyakauru RN, Irri RA, Myers SR, Ghanem AM. Research priorities in light of current trends in microsurgical training: revalidation, simulation, cross-training, and standardisation. Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41 (03) 218-224
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Satterwhite T, Son J, Carey J. , et al. Microsurgery education in residency training: validating an online curriculum. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (04) 410-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Balasundaram I, Aggarwal R, Darzi LA. Development of a training curriculum for microsurgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 48 (08) 598-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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: 32938
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR. , et al. The educational impact of bench model fidelity on the acquisition of technical skill: the use of clinically relevant outcome measures. Ann Surg 2004; 240 (02) 374-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Usón J, Calles MC. Design of a new suture practice card for microsurgical training. Microsurgery 2002; 22 (08) 324-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Furka I, Brath E, Nemeth N, Miko I. Learning microsurgical suturing and knotting techniques: comparative data. Microsurgery 2006; 26 (01) 4-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Shurey S, Akelina Y, Legagneux J, Malzone G, Jiga L, Ghanem AM. The rat model in microsurgery education: classical exercises and new horizons. Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41 (03) 201-208
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kim E, Singh M, Akelina Y, Shurey S, Myers SR, Ghanem AM. Effect of microvascular anastomosis technique on end product outcome in simulated training: a prospective blinded randomized controlled trial. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (07) 556-561
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR. , et al. Validation of novel and objective measures of microsurgical skill: hand-motion analysis and stereoscopic visual acuity. Microsurgery 2003; 23 (04) 317-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jeong HS, Moon MS, Kim HS, Lee HK, Yi SY. Microsurgical training with fresh chicken legs. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70 (01) 57-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Douglas HE, Mackay IR. Microvascular surgical training models. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64 (08) e210-e212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hong JW, Kim YS, Lee WJ, Hong HJ, Roh TS, Song SY. Evaluation of the efficacy of microsurgical practice through time factor added protocol: microsurgical training using nonvital material. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21 (03) 876-881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Odobescu A, Moubayed SP, Harris PG, Bou-Merhi J, Daniels E, Danino MA. A new microsurgical research model using Thiel-embalmed arteries and comparison of two suture techniques. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (03) 389-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wolff KD, Kesting M, Mücke T, Rau A, Hölzle F. Thiel embalming technique: a valuable method for microvascular exercise and teaching of flap raising. Microsurgery 2008; 28 (04) 273-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Carey JN, Rommer E, Sheckter C. , et al. Simulation of plastic surgery and microvascular procedures using perfused fresh human cadavers. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (02) e42-e48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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 (05) 278e-279e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nam SM, Shin HS, Kim YB, Park ES, Choi CY. Microsurgical training with porcine thigh infusion model. J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29 (05) 303-306
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ilie V, Ilie V, Ghetu N, Popescu S, Grosu O, Pieptu D. Assessment of the microsurgical skills: 30 minutes versus 2 weeks patency. Microsurgery 2007; 27 (05) 451-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Price J, Naik V, Boodhwani M, Brandys T, Hendry P, Lam BK. A randomized evaluation of simulation training on performance of vascular anastomosis on a high-fidelity in vivo model: the role of deliberate practice. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142 (03) 496-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stone JP, Doherty CC, Schrag CH. Incidence and type of errors in microsurgical technique in surgical trainees. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (07) 528-532
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Layliev J, Broer PN, Saadeh PB. , et al. The certificate of added qualifications in microsurgery: consideration for subspecialty certification in microvascular surgery in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (01) 313-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Saleh GM, Voyatzis G, Hance J, Ratnasothy J, Darzi A. Evaluating surgical dexterity during corneal suturing. Arch Ophthalmol 2006; 124 (09) 1263-1266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ezra DG, Aggarwal R, Michaelides M. , et al. Skills acquisition and assessment after a microsurgical skills course for ophthalmology residents. Ophthalmology 2009; 116 (02) 257-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 McGoldrick RB, Davis CR, Paro J, Hui K, Nguyen D, Lee GK. Motion analysis for microsurgical training: objective measures of dexterity, economy of movement, and ability. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (02) 231e-240e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick RK, Szalay D. Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 1998; 73 (09) 993-997
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P. Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg 2004; 91 (02) 146-150
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Moulton CA, Dubrowski A, Macrae H, Graham B, Grober E, Reznick R. Teaching surgical skills: what kind of practice makes perfect?: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg 2006; 244 (03) 400-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Atkins JL, Kalu PU, Lannon DA, Green CJ, Butler PE. Training in microsurgical skills: does course-based learning deliver?. Microsurgery 2005; 25 (06) 481-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Selber JC, Chang EI, Liu J. , et al. Tracking the learning curve in microsurgical skill acquisition. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (04) 550e-557e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 2012; 24 (03) 69-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instrument in psychology. Psychol Assess 1994; 6: 284-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Studinger RM, Bradford MM, Jackson IT. Microsurgical training: is it adequate for the operating room?. Eur J Plast Surg 2005; 28: 91-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Starkes JL, Payk I, Hodges NJ. Developing a standardized test for the assessment of suturing skill in novice microsurgeons. Microsurgery 1998; 18 (01) 19-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Theman TA, Labow BI. Is there bias against simulation in microsurgery training?. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (07) 540-545
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar