Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38(08): 604-612
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750422
Original Article

Reduction of the Number of Live Animals Used for Microsurgical Skill Acquisition: An Experimental Randomized Noninferiority Trial

Victor Eșanu 
1   Department of Experimental Microsurgery, Center for Surgical Simulation, Training and Microsurgery, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
,
Alexandra I. Stoia 
1   Department of Experimental Microsurgery, Center for Surgical Simulation, Training and Microsurgery, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
,
George C. Dindelegan 
1   Department of Experimental Microsurgery, Center for Surgical Simulation, Training and Microsurgery, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2   Department of Surgery, First Surgical Clinic, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
,
Horaţiu A. Colosi 
3   Division of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Department of Medical Education, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
,
Maximilian G. Dindelegan 
1   Department of Experimental Microsurgery, Center for Surgical Simulation, Training and Microsurgery, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
4   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
,
Victor Volovici 
1   Department of Experimental Microsurgery, Center for Surgical Simulation, Training and Microsurgery, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
5   Department of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
6   Department of Public Health, Center for Medical Decision Making, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by an Institutional Grant (ECHITAS — no. nr.29PFE/18.10.2018) awarded to the Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy.
Ethical scoping and planning of the research reported in this publication was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R25TW010518. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Live animals have been used for decades as one of the many training models for developing surgical skills. Microsurgery in particular relies on training for skill acquisition and maintenance, using live animal models, especially rats (murine models). Efforts are underway to reduce the number of rats sacrificed to achieve this objective.

Methods A group of students with minimal microsurgical experience, after having gone through a basic microsurgical course, were randomly split into three equal groups, all three groups following a 24-week standard training program based on low- and medium-fidelity training models with standardized murine training days. In addition to the standard training regimen, each participant performed supplementary training on live rats every 4, 6, or 8 weeks. According to the training program, the procedures have been performed on chicken legs, flower petals, and rats, each procedure being blindly assessed and evaluated using validated models and scales. The primary evaluated outcome was the Stanford Microsurgery and Resident Training (SMaRT) scale result of the final rat anastomosis performed by each group, for which the tested hypothesis was one of noninferiority. The secondary outcomes were represented by the final rat anastomosis time, final chicken leg anastomosis result and time, and the final petal score.

Results After the 24th week, no differences were observed between the three groups regarding their microsurgical skills, as measured by the aforementioned surgical outcomes. All participants improved significantly during the study (mean [standard deviation] 19 ± 4 points on the SMaRT scale), with no significant differences between the groups, p < 0.001 for noninferiority.

Conclusion A training regimen based on low- and moderate-fidelity models, with the addition of training on a live rat every 8 weeks was noninferior to a training regimen that used a live rat every 6 weeks and also noninferior to a training regimen that used a live rat every 4 weeks.

Keywords

microsurgery training - microsurgical skills - surgical education - microsurgical anastomoses - surgical simulation


Publication History

Received: 20 December 2021

Accepted: 23 April 2022

Article published online:
07 July 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Brown JS, Rapaport BHJ. Role of live animals in the training of microvascular surgery: a systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 57 (07) 616-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gasteratos K, Paladino JR, Akelina Y, Mayer HF. Superiority of living animal models in microsurgical training: beyond technical expertise. Eur J Plast Surg 2021; 44 (02) 167-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dindelegan GC, Dammers R, Oradan AV, Vinasi RC, Dindelegan M, Volovici V. The double stitch Everting technique in the end-to-side microvascular anastomosis: validation of the technique using a randomized N-of-1 trial. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (05) 421-426
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Brosious JP, Tsuda ST, Menezes JM. et al. Objective evaluation of skill acquisition in novice microsurgeons. J Reconstr Microsurg 2012; 28 (08) 539-542
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Evgeniou E, Walker H, Gujral S. The role of simulation in microsurgical training. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (01) 171-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lahiri A, Muttath SS, Yusoff SK, Chong AK. Maintaining effective microsurgery training with reduced utilisation of live rats. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol 2020; 25 (02) 206-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 European Union. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament 263 and of the Council 264 of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. 265 Official Journal of the European Union, (2010), L276/33
    PubMed
  • 8 Office for National Statistics. Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2018; July 2019. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835935/annual-statistics-scientific-procedures-living-animals-2018.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Temple CLF, Ross DC. A new, validated instrument to evaluate competency in microsurgery: the University of Western Ontario Microsurgical Skills Acquisition/Assessment instrument [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (01) 215-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nugent E, Joyce C, Perez-Abadia G. et al. Factors influencing microsurgical skill acquisition during a dedicated training course. Microsurgery 2012; 32 (08) 649-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR. et al. Validation of novel and objective measures of microsurgical skill: Hand-motion analysis and stereoscopic visual acuity. Microsurgery 2003; 23 (04) 317-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moulton CA, Dubrowski A, Macrae H, Graham B, Grober E, Reznick R. Teaching surgical skills: what kind of practice makes perfect?: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg 2006; 244 (03) 400-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mokhtari P, Tayebi Meybodi A, Benet A, Lawton MT. Microvascular anastomosis: proposition of a learning curve. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2019; 16 (02) 211-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chan W, Niranjan N, Ramakrishnan V. Structured assessment of microsurgery skills in the clinical setting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (08) 1329-1334
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Volovici V, Dammers R, Lawton MT. et al. The flower petal training system in microsurgery: validation of a training model using a randomized controlled trial. Ann Plast Surg 2019; 83 (06) 697-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Satterwhite T, Son J, Carey J. et al. The Stanford Microsurgery and Resident Training (SMaRT) scale: validation of an on-line global rating scale for technical assessment. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 72 (Suppl. 01) S84-S88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dumestre D, Yeung JK, Temple-Oberle C. Evidence-based microsurgical skill-acquisition series part 1: validated microsurgical models–a systematic review. J Surg Educ 2014; 71 (03) 329-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hui KC, Zhang F, Shaw WW. et al. Learning curve of microvascular venous anastomosis: a never ending struggle?. Microsurgery 2000; 20 (01) 22-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Boecker A, Kornmann J, Xiong L. et al. A structured, microsurgical training curriculum improves the outcome in lower extremity reconstruction free flap residency training: the Ludwigshafen concept. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (06) 492-502
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Navia A, Tejos R, Canahuate S. et al. MicrosimUC: validation of a low-cost, portable, do-it-yourself microsurgery training kit. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735593.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wang WC, Hu HW, Ciudad P, Lin BS, Chen HC, Chang CC. A comparison of the use of two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualization systems by novice and experienced microsurgeons in microsurgical vessel anastomosis: an analysis using the chicken model. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735291.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Paladino JR, Gasteratos K, Akelina Y, Marshall B, Papazoglou LG, Strauch RJ. The benefits of expert instruction in microsurgery courses. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (02) 143-153
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar