Anterolateral Thigh Flap in a Chicken Model: A Novel Perforator Training Model

Abstract

Background Preclinical training in perforator flap harvesting is typically conducted on living animal models; however, repeated training is not possible with these models because of ethical and/or economical constraints. We describe an anterolateral thigh flap (ALT flap) training model using chicken thigh that seems to be an appropriate training model prior, for example, to raise a perforator flap in a living rat or swine model.

Methods A total of 10 chicken legs were used in this study. Six chicken legs were anatomically dissected to confirm the presence of the perforator and to identify the main vascular tree. In four chicken legs, a skin flap was planned based on the perforator and intramuscular dissection was performed under magnification.

Results The perforator was identified in all dissections and was consistently found 3 cm above the line extending from the patella to the head of the femur in its third proximal. Proximally, the mean diameter of the artery and vein was 0.56 (σ = 0.04) and 0.84 (σ = 0.06) mm, respectively. The mean dissection time to raise the flap was 88 (σ = 7) min.

Conclusion This is the first description of a nonliving biological simulation model for training in perforator flap dissection that mimics an ALT flap. As an ex vivo chicken model, it is a cost effective and readily accessible model suitable for repeated practice.

Keywords

perforator flap - chicken - training - ALT

^# indicates equal author contribution.

• References

• 1 Blondeel PN, Morris SF, Hallock GG, Neligan P. Perforator Flaps: Anatomy, Technique and Clinical Applications. 1st ed. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing; 2006: 1042
• 2 Seaber AV. Laboratory design in preparing for elective microvascular surgery. Hand Clin 1985; 1 (02) 233-245
• 3 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
• 4 Blondeel PN. Technical aspects of perforator dissection. In: Blondeel PN, Morris SF, Hallock GG, Neligan PC. , eds. Perforator Flaps: Anatomy, Technique & Clinical Applications. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishers; 2013: 137-138
• 5 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
• 6 Hallock GG. Is there a “learning curve” for muscle perforator flaps?. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60 (02) 146-149
• 7 Ha Y, Song SH, Kang NH, Oh SH. Proper choice of vessels for supermicrosurgery training: an experimental animal study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34 (09) 742-748
• 8 Bas CE, Cwykiel J, Siemionow M. A new supermicrosurgery training model of saphenous artery and great saphenous vein anastomosis for development of advanced microsurgical skills. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (06) 426-434
• 9 Trignano E, Fallico N, Zingone G, Dessy LA, Campus GV. Microsurgical Training with the Three-Step Approach. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (02) 87-91
• 10 MacIntyre IMC, Munro A. Simulation in surgical training. BMJ 1990; 300 (6732): 1088-1089
• 11 Mei J, Yin Z, Zhang J. , et al. A mini pig model for visualization of perforator flap by using angiography and MIMICS. Surg Radiol Anat 2010; 32 (05) 477-484
• 12 Kayano S, Nakagawa M, Nagamatsu S, Koizumi T, Akazawa S. Why not perforator flap training models in rats?. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (02) e134-e135
• 13 Hallock GG, Rice DC. Cranial epigastric perforator flap: a rat model of a true perforator flap. Ann Plast Surg 2003; 50 (04) 393-397
• 14 Rodríguez A, Alvarez A, Aguirrezabalaga J, Martelo F. The anteromedial thigh flap as a training model of a perforator flap in rat. J Reconstr Microsurg 2007; 23 (05) 251-255
• 15 Nistor A, Jiga L, Georgescu D. , et al. Abstract 39: the pig as an ideal training model for perforator flap dissection in living tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (3, Suppl): 49
• 16 Ardelean F, Chiroiu B, Georgescu A, Petcu S, Papuc I, Lacătuş R. Perforator flap in pig experimental study with applications in reconstructive surgery. Cluj Vet J 2009; 15 (01) 57-62
• 17 Fanua SP, Kim J, Shaw Wilgis EF. Alternative model for teaching microsurgery. Microsurgery 2001; 21 (08) 379-382
• 18 Russell WMS, Burch RL. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen; 1959
• 19 Lannon DA, Atkins JA, Butler PE. Non-vital, prosthetic, and virtual reality models of microsurgical training. Microsurgery 2001; 21 (08) 389-393
• 20 Couceiro J, Ozyurekoglu T, Sanders S, Tien H. Microsurgical training regimen with nonliving chicken models. Microsurgery 2013; 33 (03) 251-252
• 21 Hino A. Training in microvascular surgery using a chicken wing artery. Neurosurgery 2003; 52 (06) 1495-1497 , discussion 1497–1498
• 22 Funatsu MK, Esteban D, Junior AH, Hoyos MB. New training model for reconstructive microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (02) 692-694
• 23 Cifuentes IJ, Yañez RA, Salisbury MC, Rodriguez JR, Varas JE, Dagnino BL. A novel perforator flap training model using a chicken leg. J Hand Microsurg 2016; 8 (01) 17-20
• 24 Kiran G, Murali A. Automatic rectification of perspective distortion from a single image using plane homography. Int J Comput Sci Appl 2013; 3 (05) 47-58
• 25 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 (05) 278e-279e
• 26 Schoffl H, Hager D, Hinterdorfer C. , et al. Pulsatile perfused porcine coronary arteries for microvascular training. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (02) 213-216
• 27 Hong JP. The use of supermicrosurgery in lower extremity reconstruction: the next step in evolution. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (01) 230-235
• 28 Hong JP, Koshima I. Using perforators as recipient vessels (supermicrosurgery) for free flap reconstruction of the knee region. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 64 (03) 291-293