Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37(02): 154-160
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716320
Original Article

The Role of Cadaver-Based Flap Course in Microsurgical Education and Practice Patterns of Attendees: A Survey Study

Saïd C. Azoury
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Sammy Othman
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
David L. Colen
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Robyn B. Broach
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Ines Lin
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Michael R. Zenn
2   Zenn Plastic Surgery, Raleigh, North Carolina
,
Stephen J. Kovach   *
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
L. Scott Levin   *
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background In 2017, our institution initiated a cadaver laboratory-based course dedicated to teaching reconstructive microsurgery indications, preoperative planning, and flap dissection. The goals of this study are to describe the demographics and experience of participants/instructors and to evaluate the learning objectives and effectiveness of the course.

Methods Penn Flap Course (PFC) participants were sent an anonymous survey at the inaugural PFC 2017. Then, in 2019, both instructors and participants were sent a more comprehensive survey. Surveys included questions regarding demographics, training background, experiences in practice and/or training, and course evaluation.

Results At PFC 2017, participant response rate was 25% (12/44), and the primary reason for attending the course was to observe and learn from instructor dissections (66.7%). At PFC 2019, the response rate was 77.3% (17/22) for faculty and 73.0% (35/48) for participants. Both in 2017 and 2019, the vast majority of participants reported perceived improvement in understanding of flap dissection principles across all anatomic domains (94.3%–100%). In 2019, when asked about their background experience, the majority of participants reported comfort performing arterial and venous anastomosis without supervision (71%–77%) and being least comfortable with head and neck (H&N) microsurgery (mean comfort level: 5.2/10). Half of the participants (e.g., residents) find the presence of a microsurgery fellow at their institution useful to their educational experience. Instructors with additional fellowship training in microsurgery reported performing a higher volume of free flaps per week (7 vs. 2.3) and per year (94.2 vs. 27.8; p < 0.05 for both) and trend toward performing more H&N reconstruction (p = 0.057).

Conclusion Participants feel least comfortable with H&N microsurgical reconstruction. Surgical faculty with microsurgical fellowship training performs greater volume of microsurgical cases with a trend toward more H&N reconstruction. A cadaver/lecture-based flap course is an effective way to improve participants' perceived confidence and understanding of complex flap and microsurgical reconstructive procedures.

Keywords

education - cadaver - flap course

Note

M.R.Z., S.T.J., and L.S.L. are co-directors of the Penn Flap Course and L.S.L. is the director of the Human Tissue Laboratory. This study was presented at the seventh Annual American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons Winter Retreat, Austin, TX, February 22–23, 2020.


* Co-senior authors




Publication History

Received: 05 April 2020

Accepted: 15 July 2020

Article published online:
01 September 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Tamai S. History of microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (06) e282-e294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ko JWK, Lorzano A, Mirarchi AJ. Effectiveness of a microvascular surgery training curriculum for orthopaedic surgery residents. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (11) 950-955
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rodriguez JR, Yañez R, Cifuentes I, Varas J, Dagnino B. Microsurgery workout: a novel simulation training curriculum based on nonliving models. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (04) 739e-747e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Luginbuhl AJ, Pribitkin EA, Krein H, Heffelfinger RN. Assessment of microvascular anastomosis training in otolaryngology residencies: survey of United States program directors. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 143 (05) 633-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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
  • 6 Mueller MA, Pourtaheri N, Evans GRD. Microsurgery training resource variation among US integrated plastic surgery residency programs. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (03) 176-181
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Al-Bustani S, Halvorson EG. Status of microsurgical simulation training in plastic surgery a survey of United States program directors. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (06) 713-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Krähenbühl SM, Čvančara P, Stieglitz T. et al. Return of the cadaver: key role of anatomic dissection for plastic surgery resident training. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96 (29) e7528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Turner AJ, Mellington A, Ali F. Fresh cadaver dissection for training in plastic surgery. Br J Plast Surg 2005; 58 (05) 742-743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chouari TAM, Lindsay K, Bradshaw E. et al. An enhanced fresh cadaveric model for reconstructive microsurgery training. Eur J Plast Surg 2018; 41 (04) 439-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bancroft GN, Basu CB, Leong M, Mateo C, Hollier Jr LH, Stal S. Outcome-based residency education: teaching and evaluating the core competencies in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (06) 441e-448e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Reed AB, Crafton C, Giglia JS, Hutto JD. Back to basics: use of fresh cadavers in vascular surgery training. Surgery 2009; 146 (04) 757-762 , discussion 762–763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Grober ED, Elterman DS, Jewett MAS. Fellow or foe: the impact of fellowship training programs on the education of Canadian urology residents. Can Urol Assoc J 2008; 2 (01) 33-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Serletti JM, Deuber MA, Guidera PM. et al. Comparison of the operating microscope and loupes for free microvascular tissue transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 95 (02) 270-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Stranix JT, Azoury SC, Lee Z-H. et al. Matched comparison of microsurgical anastomoses performed with loupe magnification versus operating microscope in traumatic lower extremity reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (01) 235-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ross DA, Ariyan S, Restifo R, Sasaki CT. Use of the operating microscope and loupes for head and neck free microvascular tissue transfer: a retrospective comparison. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 129 (02) 189-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pannucci CJ, Basta MN, Kovach SJ, Kanchwala SK, Wu LC, Serletti JM. Loupes-only microsurgery is a safe alternative to the operating microscope: an analysis of 1,649 consecutive free flap breast reconstructions. J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31 (09) 636-642
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kozak GM, Katzel EB, Rose JF, Nathan SL, Wu LC. An analysis of specialty-specific microsurgical head and neck reconstruction: a look at a single institution and national trends over a decade. Ann Plast Surg 2020; 84 (04) 413-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lee Z-H, Daar DA, Jacobson AS, Levine JP. The decline of head and neck reconstruction in plastic surgery: where do we go from here?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (02) 467e-468e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Satterwhite T, Son J, Carey J. et al. Microsurgery education in residency training: validating an online curriculum. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (04) 410-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Theman TA, Labow BI. Is there bias against simulation in microsurgery training?. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (07) 540-545
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Evgeniou E, Walker H, Gujral S. The role of simulation in microsurgical training. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (01) 171-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Messmer C, Kellogg RT, Zhang Y. et al. A technique to perfuse cadavers that extends the useful life of fresh tissues: the Duke experience. Anat Sci Educ 2010; 3 (04) 191-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar