The Chicken Thigh Adductor Profundus Free Muscle Flap: A Novel Validated Non-Living Microsurgery Simulation Training Model

Background Simulation training is becoming an increasingly important component of skills acquisition in surgical specialties, including Plastic Surgery. Non-living simulation models have an established place in Plastic Surgical microsurgery training, and support the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement of animal use. A more sophisticated version of the basic chicken thigh microsurgery model has been developed to include dissection of a type 1-muscle flap and is described and validated here.

Methods A step-by-step dissection guide on how to perform the chicken thigh adductor profundus free muscle flap is demonstrated. Forty trainees performed the novel simulation muscle flap on the last day of a 5-day microsurgery course. Pre- and post-course microvascular anastomosis assessment, along with micro dissection and end product (anastomosis lapse index) assessment, demonstrated skills acquisition.

Results The average time to dissect the flap by novice trainees was 82±24 minutes, by core trainees 90±24 minutes, and by higher trainees 64±21 minutes (P=0.013). There was a statistically significant difference in the time to complete the anastomosis between the three levels of training (P=0.001) and there was a significant decrease in the time taken to perform the anastomosis following course completion (P<0.001). Anastomosis lapse index scores improved for all cohorts with post-test average anastomosis lapse index score of 3±1.4 (P<0.001).

Conclusions The novel chicken thigh adductor profundus free muscle flap model demonstrates face and construct validity for the introduction of the principles of free tissue transfer. The low cost, constant, and reproducible anatomy makes this simulation model a recommended addition to any microsurgical training curriculum.

Keywords - Microsurgery - Education - Flap

This manuscript was presented during the 2016 ASRM Annual Meeting, on January 16–19, 2016 in Scottsdale, AZ, USA.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 29. Dezember 2016

Angenommen: 05. April 2017

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
20. April 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Singh M, Ziolkowski N, Ramachandran S. et al. Development of a five-day basic microsurgery simulation training course: a cost analysis. Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41: 213-7
• 2 Fanua SP, Kim J, Shaw Wilgis EF. Alternative model for teaching microsurgery. Microsurgery 2001; 21: 379-82
• 3 Shurey S, Akelina Y, Legagneux J. et al. The rat model in microsurgery education: classical exercises and new horizons. Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41: 201-8
• 4 Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen; 1959
• 5 Lannon DA, Atkins JA, Butler PE. Non-vital, prosthetic, and virtual reality models of microsurgical training. Microsurgery 2001; 21: 389-93
• 6 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: 1231-5
• 7 Colpan ME, Slavin KV, Amin-Hanjani S. et al. Microvascular anastomosis training model based on a Turkey neck with perfused arteries. Neurosurgery 2008; 62: ONS407-10
• 8 Lausada NR, Escudero E, Lamonega R. et al. Use of cryopreserved rat arteries for microsurgical training. Microsurgery 2005; 25: 500-1
• 9 Marsh DJ, Norton SE, Mok J. et al. Microsurgical training: the chicken thigh model. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 59: 355-6
• 10 Chan WY, Matteucci P, Southern SJ. Validation of microsurgical models in microsurgery training and competence: a review. Microsurgery 2007; 27: 494-9
• 11 Erman AB, Deschler DG. The chicken thigh model for head and neck microvascular training. Laryngoscope. 2011. 121. (SUPPL 4) http://doi.org/10.1002/lary.21990
• 12 Hino A. Training in microvascular surgery using a chicken wing artery. Neurosurgery 2003; 52: 1495-7
• 13 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: 20-5
• 14 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
• 15 Mathes SJ, Nahai F. Clinical atlas of muscle and musculocutaneous flaps. St. Louis: London Mosby; 1979
• 16 Ghanem AM, Al Omran Y, Shatta B. et al. Anastomosis lapse index (ALI): a validated end product assessment tool for simulation microsurgery training. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32: 233-41
• 17 Ilie VG, Ilie VI, Dobreanu C. et al. Training of microsurgical skills on nonliving models. Microsurgery 2008; 28: 571-7
• 18 Starkes JL, Payk I, Jennen P. et al. Chapter 12 A stitch in time: cognitive issues in microsurgery. In: Starkes JL, Allard F. Advances in psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1993: 225-40
• 19 Madada-Nyakauru R, Ghanem A, Malzone G. et al. Microsurgery skill retention: implications for continuous professional development and revalidation. Proceeding of the 12th Congress of the European Federation of Societies for Microsurgery (EFSM) and the 15th National Congress of the Spanish Association of Microsurgery; 2014 Apr 3–5; Barcelona Spain 2014
• 20 Ghanem AM, Hachach-Haram N, Leung CC. et al. A systematic review of evidence for education and training interventions in microsurgery. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40: 312-9
• 21 Chen WF, Eid A, Yamamoto T. et al. A novel supermicrosurgery training model: the chicken thigh. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67: 973-8