Perforator Dissection Porcine Abdominal Model: A Novel Simulator to Improve Microsurgical Training

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Perforator dissection and flap elevation are routinely performed for microsurgical reconstruction; however, there is a steep learning curve to mastering these technical skills. Though live porcine models have been utilized as microsurgical training models, significant drawbacks limit their use. We recently developed a latex-perfused, nonliving, porcine abdomen perforator dissection simulation and described its anatomic similarity to the human deep inferior epigastric artery flap. The purpose was to assess the change in resident confidence in performing key operative steps of flap elevation and perforator dissection and obtain feedback on model realism and utility.

Methods Seventeen plastic and reconstructive surgery resident physicians (postgraduate years 1–6) at a single institution participated in a perforator dissection session utilizing the simulation model. Each resident completed pre- and postactivity surveys to assess interval change in confidence in operating. The postactivity survey also asked residents to answer questions regarding their perception of the model's anatomic and surgical realism and utility in microsurgical training.

Results Following a practice session using the latex-perfused, nonliving porcine abdomen, resident confidence was significantly increased in performing all key operative steps and the procedure overall (p = 0.001). All residents (n = 17, 100%) believed the model would improve “trainees' ability to perform perforator dissection in the operating room.” Perforator, fascial, and pedicle anatomy were reported to be “Very” similar to human anatomy, with a median Likert score (MLS) of 4. Additionally, six out of the eight surgical steps were noted to be “Very” realistic, with only “Flap Design” and “Fascial Closure” found to be “Moderately” realistic with an MLS of 3.

Conclusion The latex-infused porcine abdominal model is a novel, realistic simulation for microsurgical trainee perforator dissection practice. This model offers a suitable substitute for perforator dissection practice, as its implementation within a microsurgery training course improves resident comfort and confidence.

Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization: E.C.S., W.Z., A.M.D., S.O.P.

Formal analysis: E.C.S.

Investigation: E.C.S., W.Z., J.M.F., P.J.N., S.E.

Methodology: E.C.S., W.Z., A.M.D., S.O.P.

Supervision: A.M.D., S.O.P.

Writing (original draft): E.C.S.

Writing (review and editing): E.C.S., W.Z., P.J.N., S.E., J.M.F., A.M.D., S.O.P.

Publication History

Received: 18 June 2023

Accepted: 21 January 2024

Article published online:
23 February 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

• References

• 1 Blondeel PN, Van Landuyt KHI, Monstrey SJM. et al. The “Gent” consensus on perforator flap terminology: preliminary definitions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112 (05) 1378-1383 , quiz 1383, 1516, discussion 1384–1387
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Haddock NT, Teotia SS. Deconstructing the reconstruction: evaluation of process and efficiency in deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (04) 717e-724e
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. National Plastic Surgery Statistics. 2020. Accessed on May 6, 2023 at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2020/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2020.pdf
  PubMed
• 4 Egeberg A, Rasmussen MK, Sørensen JA. Comparing the donor-site morbidity using DIEP, SIEA or MS-TRAM flaps for breast reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 65 (11) 1474-1480
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Bovill JD, Haffner ZK, Huffman SS. et al. Trends in fellowship training across United States plastic and reconstructive surgery academic faculty. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2022; 10 (10) e4611
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Varnava C, Wiebringhaus P, Hirsch T, Dermietzel A, Kueckelhaus M. Breast reconstruction with DIEP flap: the learning curve at a breast reconstruction center and a single-surgeon study. J Clin Med 2023; 12 (08) 2894
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Taylor I, Allen B, Angrigiani C. et al Perforator flaps. . Accessed on May 6, 2023 at: https://perforator.surgery/en
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Cederna P, Jong JP, Masia J. et al Dissection Course—International Perforator Flap Dissection Course. . Accessed on May 6, 2023 at: https://www.dissectioncourse.org/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Duke Department of Surgery. Fresh Cadaver Flap Dissection Course. Accessed on May 6, 2023 at: https://surgery.duke.edu/education-and-training/continuing-medical-education/courses/plastic-surgery/fresh-cadaver-flap-dissection-course
  PubMed
• 10 Loh CYY, Wang AYL, Tiong VTY. et al. Animal models in plastic and reconstructive surgery simulation-a review. J Surg Res 2018; 221: 232-245
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Curzer HJ, Perry G, Wallace MC, Perry D. The three Rs of animal research: what they mean for the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Why. Sci Eng Ethics 2016; 22 (02) 549-565
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Shaffrey EC, Zeng W, Nicksic PJ. et al. Latex-infused porcine abdominal model: a novel microsurgery simulator for deep inferior epigastric perforator dissection. J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40 (01) 23-29
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 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
• 14 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Schoeff S, Hernandez B, Robinson DJ, Jameson MJ, Shonka Jr DC. Microvascular anastomosis simulation using a chicken thigh model: interval versus massed training. Laryngoscope 2017; 127 (11) 2490-2494
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Acosta R, Smit JM, Audolfsson T. et al. A clinical review of 9 years of free perforator flap breast reconstructions: an analysis of 675 flaps and the influence of new techniques on clinical practice. J Reconstr Microsurg 2011; 27 (02) 91-98
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Busic V, Das-Gupta R, Mesic H, Begic A. The deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction, the learning curve explored. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59 (06) 580-584
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Lee KT, Park JW, Mun GH. Impact of rectus muscle injury during perforator dissection on functional donor morbidity after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (10) e2484
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Grinsell DG, McCoubrey GW, Finkemeyer JP. The deep inferior epigastric perforator learning curve in the current era. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (01) 72-77
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Glass CC, Acton RD, Blair PG. et al. American College of Surgeons/Association for Surgical Education medical student simulation-based surgical skills curriculum needs assessment. Am J Surg 2014; 207 (02) 165-169
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Okusanya OT, Kornfield ZN, Reinke CE. et al. The effect and durability of a pregraduation boot cAMP on the confidence of senior medical student entering surgical residencies. J Surg Educ 2012; 69 (04) 536-543
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Minter RM, Amos KD, Bentz ML. et al. Transition to surgical residency: a multi-institutional study of perceived intern preparedness and the effect of a formal residency preparatory course in the fourth year of medical school. Acad Med 2015; 90 (08) 1116-1124
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Sutherland LM, Middleton PF, Anthony A. et al. Surgical simulation: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2006; 243 (03) 291-300
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Nistor A, Jiga LP, Miclaus GD, Hoinoiu B, Matusz P, Ionac ME. Experimental swine models for perforator flap dissection in reconstructive microsurgery. PLoS ONE 2022; 17 (04) e0266873
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Oezdogan Y, Loh CYY, Prochnow N, Lehnhardt M. Perforator dissection simulation: a high-fidelity five-flap porcine training model. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2020; 19 (01) 151-156
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Bergmeister KD, Aman M, Kramer A. et al. Simulating surgical skills in animals: systematic review, costs & acceptance analyses. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7: 570852
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Pignatti M, Tos P, Garusi C. et al. A sequence of flaps and dissection exercises in the living model to improve the learning curve for perforator flap surgery. Injury 2020; 51 (Suppl. 04) S22-S30
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Nykiel M, Wong R, Lee G. An economical training model to teach and practice deep inferior epigastric artery perforator dissection. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 72 (Suppl. 01) S66-S70
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Chouari TAM, Lindsay K, Bradshaw E. et al. An enhanced fresh cadaveric model for reconstructive microsurgery training. Eur J Plast Surg 2018; 41 (04) 439-446
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material