Comprehensive Analysis of Chicken Vessels as Microvascular Anastomosis Training Model

Background Nonliving chickens are commonly used as a microvascular anastomosis training model. However, previous studies have investigated only a few types of vessel, and no study has compared the characteristics of the various vessels. The present study evaluated the anatomic characteristics of various chicken vessels as a training model.

Methods Eight vessels—the brachial artery, basilic vein, radial artery, ulnar artery, ischiatic artery and vein, cranial tibial artery, and common dorsal metatarsal artery—were evaluated in 26 fresh chickens and 30 chicken feet for external diameter (ED) and thicknesses of the tunica adventitia and media. The dissection time from skin incision to application of vessel clamps was also measured.

Results The EDs of the vessels varied. The ischiatic vein had the largest ED of 2.69±0.33 mm, followed by the basilic vein (1.88±0.36 mm), ischiatic artery (1.68±0.24 mm), common dorsal metatarsal artery (1.23±0.23 mm), cranial tibial artery (1.18±0.19 mm), brachial artery (1.08±0.15 mm), ulnar artery (0.82±0.13 mm), and radial artery (0.56±0.12 mm), and the order of size was consistent across all subjects. Thicknesses of the tunica adventitia and media were also diverse, ranging from 74.09±19.91 µm to 158.66±40.25 µm (adventitia) and from 31.2±7.13 µm to 154.15±46.48 µm (media), respectively. Mean dissection time was <3 minutes for all vessels.

Conclusions Our results suggest that nonliving chickens can provide various vessels with different anatomic characteristics, which can allow trainees the choice of an appropriate microvascular anastomosis training model depending on their purpose and skillfulness.

Keywords

Chickens - Models, educational - Anastomosis, surgical

^*Bo Young Kang and Byung-Joon Jeon are first co-authors, equally contributing to this work.

Publication History

Received: 17 May 2016

Accepted: 04 October 2016

Article published online:
20 April 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Couceiro J, Ozyurekoglu T, Sanders S. et al. Microsurgical training regimen with nonliving chicken models. Microsurgery 2013; 33: 251-252
• 2 Abla AA, Uschold T, Preul MC. et al. Comparative use of turkey and chicken wing brachial artery models for microvascular anastomosis training. J Neurosurg 2011; 115: 1231-1235
• 3 Lannon DA, Atkins JA, Butler PE. Non-vital, prosthetic, and virtual reality models of microsurgical training. Microsurgery 2001; 21: 389-393
• 4 Kim BJ, Kim ST, Jeong YG. et al. An efficient microvascular anastomosis training model based on chicken wings and simple instruments. J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg 2013; 15: 20-25
• 5 Govila A. A simple model on which to practise microsurgical technique: a fresh chicken. Br J Plast Surg 1981; 34: 486-487
• 6 Hino A. Training in microvascular surgery using a chicken wing artery. Neurosurgery 2003; 52: 1495-1497
• 7 Galeano M, Zarabini AG. The usefulness of a fresh chicken leg as an experimental model during the intermediate stages of microsurgical training. Ann Plast Surg 2001; 47: 96-97
• 8 Satterwhite T, Son J, Echo A. et al. The chicken foot dorsal vessel as a high-fidelity microsurgery practice model. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 311e-312e
• 9 Elgammal SM, Swielim GA, Khalifa EF. et al. Anatomical studies on the arterial blood supply of the pelvic limb of chicken. Suez Canal Vet Med J 2012; 2: 171-119
• 10 Colohan S, Maia M, Langevin CJ. et al. The short- and ultrashort-pedicle deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 331-340
• 11 Kiray A, Ergur I, Tayefi H. et al. Anatomical evaluation of the superficial veins of the upper extremity as graft donor source in microvascular reconstructions: a cadaveric study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2013; 47: 405-410
• 12 Feng LJ. Recipient vessels in free-flap breast reconstruction: a study of the internal mammary and thoracodorsal vessels. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99: 405-416
• 13 Xu Z, Chenglin L, Zhiwen N. et al. Use of flap based on posterior tibial artery for free transfer. J Reconstr Microsurg 2007; 23: 361-365
• 14 Doscher M, Charafeddine AH, Schiff BA. et al. Superficial temporal artery and vein as recipient vessels for scalp and facial reconstruction: radiographic support for underused vessels. J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31: 249-253
• 15 Hazani R, Elston J, Brooks D. et al. Bridging the gap in hand replantation: use of the common digital artery for completion of the superficial palmar arch. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 2037-2042
• 16 Gillis JA, Prasad V, Morris SF. Three-dimensional analysis of the internal mammary artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128: 419e-426e
• 17 Qassemyar Q, Havet E, Sinna R. Vascular basis of the facial artery perforator flap: analysis of 101 perforator territories. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 421-429
• 18 Thomas BP, Geddes CR, Tang M. et al. The vascular basis of the thoracodorsal artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116: 818-822
• 19 Ozcelik IB, Purisa H, Sezer I. et al. The results of digital replantations at the level of the distal interphalangeal joint and the distal phalanx. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2006; 40: 62-66
• 20 Venkatramani H, Sabapathy SR. Fingertip replantation: Technical considerations and outcome analysis of 24 consecutive fingertip replantations. Indian J Plast Surg 2011; 44: 237-245
• 21 Chen WF, Eid A, Yamamoto T. et al. A novel supermicrosurgery training model: the chicken thigh. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67: 973-978
• 22 Jeong WS, Yun J, Lee TJ. et al. Histologic comparison between the internal mammary artery and the deep inferior epigastric artery and clinical implications for microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2015; 49: 234-237
• 23 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: 278e-279e