J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2013; 74(05): 286-291
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1348026
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Chicken Wing Training Model for Endoscopic Microsurgery

Ignacio Jusue-Torres
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Sananthan Sivakanthan
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Carlos Diogenes Pinheiro-Neto
2   Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Paul A. Gardner
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Carl H. Snyderman
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
2   Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Juan C. Fernandez-Miranda
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

02 January 2013

05 April 2013

Publication Date:
12 July 2013 (online)

Abstract

Objectives To present and validate a chicken wing model for endoscopic endonasal microsurgical skill development.

Setting A surgical environment was constructed using a Styrofoam box and measurements from radiological studies. Endoscopic visualization and instrumentation were utilized in a manner to mimic operative setting.

Design Five participants were instructed to complete four sequential tasks: (1) opening the skin, (2) exposing the main artery in its neurovascular sheath, (3) opening the neurovascular sheath, and (4) separating the nerve from the artery. Time to completion of each task was recorded.

Participants Three junior attendings, one senior resident, and one medical student were recruited internally.

Main Outcome Measures Time to perform the surgical tasks measured in seconds.

Results The average time of the first training session was 48.8 minutes; by the 10th training session, the average time was 22.4 minutes. The range of improvement was 25.7 minutes to 72.4 minutes. All five participants exhibited statistically significant decrease in time after 10 trials. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that an improvement of 50% was achieved by an average of five attempts at the 95% confidence interval.

Conclusions The ex vivo chicken wing model is an inexpensive and relatively realistic model to train endoscopic dissection using microsurgical techniques.

 
  • References

  • 1 Maroon JC. Skull base surgery: past, present, and future trends. Neurosurg Focus 2005; 19 (1) E1
  • 2 Prevedello DM, Kassam AB, Gardner PA, Carrau RL, Snyderman CH. Expanded endoscopic endonasal approaches to the skull base. In: Cappabianca P, Califano L, Iaconetta G, , eds. Cranial, Craniofacial and Skull Base Surgery. New York: Springer; 2010: 239-251
  • 3 Sonnenburg RE, White D, Ewend MG, Senior B. The learning curve in minimally invasive pituitary surgery. Am J Rhinol 2004; 18 (4) 259-263
  • 4 Koc K, Anik I, Ozdamar D, Cabuk B, Keskin G, Ceylan S. The learning curve in endoscopic pituitary surgery and our experience. Neurosurg Rev 2006; 29 (4) 298-305, discussion 305
  • 5 O'Malley Jr BW, Grady MS, Gabel BC , et al. Comparison of endoscopic and microscopic removal of pituitary adenomas: single-surgeon experience and the learning curve. Neurosurg Focus 2008; 25 (6) E10
  • 6 Leach P, Abou-Zeid AH, Kearney T, Davis J, Trainer PJ, Gnanalingham KK. Endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: evidence of an operative learning curve. Neurosurgery 2010; 67 (5) 1205-1212
  • 7 Smith SJ, Eralil G, Woon K, Sama A, Dow G, Robertson I. Light at the end of the tunnel: the learning curve associated with endoscopic transsphenoidal skull base surgery. Skull Base 2010; 20 (2) 69-74
  • 8 Snyderman CH, Pant H, Carrau RL, Prevedello D, Gardner P, Kassam AB. What are the limits of endoscopic sinus surgery?: the expanded endonasal approach to the skull base. Keio J Med 2009; 58 (3) 152-160
  • 9 Snyderman C, Kassam A, Carrau R, Mintz A, Gardner P, Prevedello DM. Acquisition of surgical skills for endonasal skull base surgery: a training program. Laryngoscope 2007; 117 (4) 699-705
  • 10 Prevedello DM, Kassam AB, Snyderman C , et al. Endoscopic cranial base surgery: ready for prime time?. Clin Neurosurg 2007; 54: 48-57
  • 11 Yasargil MG. Laboratory training. In: Yasargil MG, , ed. Microneurosurgery, Volume IV B, Microneurosurgery of CNS Tumors. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc; 1996: 26-28
  • 12 Chen G, Ling F. A new plastic model of endoscopic technique training for endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. Chin Med J (Engl) 2010; 123 (18) 2576-2579
  • 13 Olabe J, Olabe J. Microsurgical training on an in vitro chicken wing infusion model. Surg Neurol 2009; 72 (6) 695-699
  • 14 Filho FV, Coelho G, Cavalheiro S, Lyra M, Zymberg ST. Quality assessment of a new surgical simulator for neuroendoscopic training. Neurosurg Focus 2011; 30 (4) E17
  • 15 Fernandez-Miranda JC, Barges-Coll J, Prevedello DM , et al. Animal model for endoscopic neurosurgical training: technical note. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2010; 53 (5-6) 286-289
  • 16 Okuda T, Kataoka K, Kato A. Training in endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery using a skull model and eggs. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 152 (10) 1801-1804
  • 17 Muyamida Y. Fresh cadaveric dissection as a training system of endoscopic endonasal surgery. Skull Base 2009; 19 (Suppl. 01) 36 (abstr)