Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39(09): 734-742
DOI: 10.1055/a-2057-0766
Original Article

Blue-Blood Pig Thorax Model Increases Residents' Confidence in Internal Mammary Dissection

Kirsten A. Gunderson
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Weifeng Zeng
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Zeeda H. Nkana
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Kasey Leigh Matabele Wood
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Sarah M. Lyon
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Nicholas J. Albano
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Samuel O. Poore 
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Preparation of the recipient vessels is a crucial step in autologous breast reconstruction, with limited opportunity for resident training intraoperatively. The Blue-Blood–infused porcine chest wall—a cadaveric pig thorax embedded in a mannequin shell, connected to a saline perfusion system—is a novel, cost-effective ($55) simulator of internal mammary artery (IMA) dissection and anastomosis intended to improve resident's comfort, safety, and expertise with all steps of this procedure. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of the use of this chest wall model on resident's confidence in performing dissection and anastomosis of the IMA, as well as obtain resident's and faculty's perspectives on model realism and utility.

Methods Plastic surgery residents and microsurgery faculty at the University of Wisconsin were invited to participate. One expert microsurgeon led individual training sessions and performed as the microsurgical assistant. Participants anonymously completed surveys prior to and immediately following their training session to assess their change in confidence performing the procedure, as well as their perception of model realism and utility as a formal microsurgical training tool on a five-point scale.

Results Every participant saw improvement in confidence after their training session in a minimum of one of seven key procedural steps identified. Of participants who had experience with this procedure in humans, the majority rated model anatomy and performance of key procedural steps as “very” or “extremely” realistic as compared with humans. 100% of participants believed practice with this model would improve residents' ability to perform this operation in the operating room and 100% of participants would recommend this model be incorporated into the microsurgical training curriculum.

Conclusion The Blue-Blood porcine chest wall simulator increases trainee confidence in performing key steps of IMA dissection and anastomosis and is perceived as valuable to residents and faculty alike.

Keywords

microsurgery - surgical simulation - surgical education - autologous reconstruction


Publication History

Received: 21 June 2022

Accepted: 28 February 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
17 March 2023

Article published online:
26 April 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Lascar I, Totir D, Cinca A. et al. Training program and learning curve in experimental microsurgery during the residency in plastic surgery. Microsurgery 2007; 27 (04) 263-267
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kania K, Chang DK, Abu-Ghname A. et al. Microsurgery training in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (07) e2898
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Hui KCW, Zhang F, Shaw WW. et al. Learning curve of microvascular venous anastomosis: a never ending struggle?. Microsurgery 2000; 20 (01) 22-24
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 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
  • 5 Gasteratos K, Paladino JR, Akelina Y, Mayer HF. Superiority of living animal models in microsurgical training: beyond technical expertise. Eur J Plast Surg 2021; 44 (02) 167-176
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 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
  • 7 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
  • 8 Shulzhenko NO, Zeng W, Albano NJ. et al. Multispecialty microsurgical course utilizing the Blue-Blood chicken thigh model significantly improves resident comfort, confidence, and attitudes in multiple domains. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (02) 142-150
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lausada NR, Escudero E, Lamonega R, Dreizzen E, Raimondi JC. Use of cryopreserved rat arteries for microsurgical training. Microsurgery 2005; 25 (06) 500-501
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Chan W-Y, Matteucci P, Southern SJ. Validation of microsurgical models in microsurgery training and competence: a review. Microsurgery 2007; 27 (05) 494-499
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Zeng W, Gunderson KA, Sanchez RJ. et al. The Blue-Blood porcine chest wall: a novel microsurgery training simulator for internal mammary vessel dissection and anastomosis. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (04) 353-356
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Ilonzo N, Tsang A, Tsantes S, Estabrook A, Thu Ma AM. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a ten-year analysis of trends and immediate postoperative outcomes. Breast 2017; 32: 7-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Drazan L, Vesely J, Hyza P. et al. Bilateral breast reconstruction with DIEP flaps: 4 years' experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008; 61 (11) 1309-1315
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Dupin CL, Allen RJ, Glass CA, Bunch R. The internal mammary artery and vein as a recipient site for free-flap breast reconstruction: a report of 110 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98 (04) 685-689 , discussion 690–692
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB. et al. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (04) 1153-1160
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kelling JA, Meade A, Adkins M, Zhang AY. Risk of pneumothorax with internal mammary vessel utilization in autologous breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2021; 86 (03) S184-S188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Moran SL, Nava G, Behnam AB, Serletti JM. An outcome analysis comparing the thoracodorsal and internal mammary vessels as recipient sites for microvascular breast reconstruction: a prospective study of 100 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111 (06) 1876-1882
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Serletti JM, Moran SL. Microvascular reconstruction of the breast. Semin Surg Oncol 2000; 19 (03) 264-271
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 2007; 21 (03) 244-247
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Rodriguez-Paz JM, Kennedy M, Salas E. et al. Beyond “see one, do one, teach one”: toward a different training paradigm. Postgrad Med J 2009; 85 (1003): 244-249
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Ritter FE, Yeh MK-C, Yan Y, Siu K-C, Oleynikov D. Effects of varied surgical simulation training schedules on motor-skill acquisition. Surg Innov 2020; 27 (01) 68-80
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Kazan R, Cyr S, Hemmerling TM, Lin SJ, Gilardino MS. The evolution of surgical simulation: the current state and future avenues for plastic surgery education. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (02) 533e-543e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Agrawal N, Turner A, Grome L. et al. Use of simulation in plastic surgery training. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (07) e2896
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Ziolkowski NI, Sun KZ, McMillan C, Ryzynski A, Snell L, Lipa JE. Simulating the IMA recipient site for DIEP flap surgery: a new model for dynamic microsurgery simulation with real-time respiration and a pilot study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022;
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Ilie VG, Ilie VI, Dobreanu C, Ghetu N, Luchian S, Pieptu D. Training of microsurgical skills on nonliving models. Microsurgery 2008; 28 (07) 571-577
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 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 (03) 329-338
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Parrett BM, Caterson SA, Tobias AM, Lee BT. The rib-sparing technique for internal mammary vessel exposure in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60 (03) 241-243
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Wilson S, Weichman K, Broer PN. et al. To resect or not to resect: the effects of rib-sparing harvest of the internal mammary vessels in microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (02) 94-100
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Hamilton K, Zavlin D, Doval AF, Spiegel AJ. Refining the rib-sparing approach in microsurgical breast reconstruction: keys to success. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (04) 263-269
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Beth Grossman L, Komatsu DE, Badalamente MA, Braunstein AM, Hurst LC. Microsurgical simulation exercise for surgical training. J Surg Educ 2016; 73 (01) 116-120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Beier JP, Horch RE, Boos AM, Taeger CD, Breuer G, Arkudas A. Establishment and evaluation of a microsurgery course for medical students. [in German]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2015; 47 (06) 400-407
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Usón-Gargallo J, Viguera-Salvago FJ, Calles-Vázquez C. Interactive advanced-communication multistation system for microsurgical training. Microsurgery 2004; 24 (03) 218-222
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar