Comparison of different microanastomosis training models : model accuracy and practicality.
OBJECTIVE
The authors evaluated the accuracies and ease of use of several commonly used microanastomosis training models (synthetic tube, chicken wing, and living rat model).


METHODS
A survey was conducted among neurosurgeons and neurosurgery residents at a workshop held in 2009 at the authors' institute. Questions addressed model accuracy (similarity to real vessels and actual procedures) and practicality (availability of materials and ease of application in daily practice). Answers to each question were rated using a 5-point scale. Participants were also asked what types of training methods they would chose to improve their skills and to introduce the topic to other neurosurgeons or neurosurgery residents.


RESULTS
Of the 24 participants, 20 (83.3%) responded to the survey. The living rat model was favored for model accuracy (p < 0.001; synthetic tube -0.95 +/- 0.686, chicken wing, 0.15 +/- 0.587, and rat, 1.75 +/- 0.444) and the chicken wing model for practicality (p < 0.001; synthetic tube -1.55 +/- 0.605, chicken wing, 1.80 +/- 0.523, and rat, 1.30 +/- 0.923). All (100%) chose the living rat model for improving their skills, and for introducing the subject to other neurosurgeons or neurosurgery residents, the chicken wing and living rat models were selected by 18 (90%) and 20 (100%), respectively.


CONCLUSIONS
Of 3 methods examined, the chicken wing model was found to be the most practical, but the living rat model was found to represent reality the best. We recommend the chicken wing model to train surgeons who have mastered basic techniques, and the living rat model for experienced surgeons to maintain skill levels.
Hwang
Gyojun
G
Department of Neurosurgery, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University, Chuncheon, Gangwon, Korea.
Oh
Chang Wan
CW
Park
Sukh Que
SQ
Sheen
Seung Hun
SH
Bang
Jae Seung
JS
Kang
Hyun-Seung
HS
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):374-81
15273564
Surg Neurol. 1986 Sep;26(3):218-21
3526597
N Engl J Med. 1985 Nov 7;313(19):1191-200
2865674
Ann Plast Surg. 1983 Apr;10(4):331-2
6847097
Surg Neurol. 2009 Dec;72(6):695-9
19329164
Surg Neurol. 2009 Mar;71(3):380-7, discussion 387
18291461
Stroke. 1985 May-Jun;16(3):397-406
2860739
Neurosurgery. 2003 Jun;52(6):1495-7; discussion 1497-8
12762899
Surg Neurol. 2006 Aug;66(2):183-7
16876622
Microsurgery. 2005;25(6):500-1
16134096