2013
DOI: 10.7461/jcen.2013.15.1.20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Efficient Microvascular Anastomosis Training Model Based on Chicken Wings and Simple Instruments

Abstract: ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to introduce a microvascular training model based on use of materials that can be easily obtained from the daily surroundings.MethodsSimple microinstruments and a medical school laboratory microscope were used for anastomosis training. Chicken blood vessels were used as a material for this study. A long segment of blood vessel from the proximal brachial artery to the distal radial artery was used for training. End-to-side anastomosis was practiced first, and the training conti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
22
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…There were no significant differences in the answers between groups for the question of how successful the participant was in accomplishing the task (p = 0.38), which contradicts the results obtained by the objective measurements (see construct validity). With regard to questions about the ability of the model to improve microsurgical techniques and instrument handling, 30 of 30 (100%) participants answered positively (within the interval of [15][16][17][18][19][20]. In addition, 30 of 30 participants considered the model to be able to improve surgical technique when the skills were applied to patients (scores within the interval of [15][16][17][18][19][20].…”
Section: Face and Content Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There were no significant differences in the answers between groups for the question of how successful the participant was in accomplishing the task (p = 0.38), which contradicts the results obtained by the objective measurements (see construct validity). With regard to questions about the ability of the model to improve microsurgical techniques and instrument handling, 30 of 30 (100%) participants answered positively (within the interval of [15][16][17][18][19][20]. In addition, 30 of 30 participants considered the model to be able to improve surgical technique when the skills were applied to patients (scores within the interval of [15][16][17][18][19][20].…”
Section: Face and Content Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, their main disadvantages are lack of surgical depth and spatial limits and tactile properties of tissues, blood flow, and coagulation. 11,12,16,21 In the present study, we developed a novel, high-fidelity, low-cost bypass simulator that successfully resembled all necessary steps of CBS 23 and is compatible with various other surgical scenarios. Validation studies confirmed the simulator's face, content, and construct validity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was a significant difference in the answers between groups for the question of how successful the participant perceived himself or herself in accomplishing the task (trained 16.3 ± 3.3 vs untrained 12.3 ± 4.1, p = 0.020). With regard to questions about the ability of the model to improve microsurgical techniques (trained 19.1 ± 1.2 vs untrained 17.9 ± 2.4, p = 0.266), instrument handling (trained 18.8 ± 1.5 vs untrained 18.6 ± 2.1, p = 0.825), and real-life surgical performance (trained 19.3 ± 1.0 vs untrained 18.3 ± 2.3, p = 0.410), 95.8% of participants answered positively (within the interval of [15][16][17][18][19][20] with no significant differences between the groups for the 3 questions related to content validity. Regarding the ease and cost-effectiveness of making the bypass simulator, 62.5% and 76.0% of participants, respectively, returned a positive rating (within the interval of 15-20) (ease: trained 16.3 ± 3.4 vs untrained 13.1 ± 4.8, p = 0.078; cost-effectiveness: trained 17.7 ± 2.5 vs untrained 15.6 ± 3.1, p = 0.219).…”
Section: Validation Of the Simulatormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our laboratory, we use the glove suture structure and then, a chicken leg. However, we observed that in some cases it was desirable to have an intermediate step in training process before chicken leg vessels anastomosis [5][6][7][8] . The ox tongue model can offer three different vessels' caliper to the microsurgeon student who is learning.…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%