A Simple Cost-Effective Method of Microsurgical Simulation Training: The Turkey Wing Model

Abstract

The rat femoral artery (RFA) anastomosis model has been the gold standard in microsurgical simulation training. While effective, live animal use requires animal use committee regulation and costly maintenance. Our institution's animal laboratory is remote to the hospital, limiting access by our busy surgical residents with their limited duty hours. We present an alternative convenient, cost-effective model. Ten frozen turkey wings were divided into distal and proximal segments. Vessel diameter, length, and anastomosis perfusion were assessed. Proximal brachial arteries (“humeral” segments) measured 8.85 ± 1.14 cm long with diameter 1.69 ± 0.27 mm. Distal brachial arteries (“forearm”) measured 10.5 ± 2.06 cm long with diameter 1.25 ± 0.25 mm. An 8-lb box (∼20 wings) cost $13.76. Separate use of the segments provides two training sessions with $0.35 per session effective cost. Our average cost for RFA microsurgical training sessions was $120 dollars for a single rat 2-hour session and $66 per rat if a maximum crate load of six rats was used. Besides significant cost, not all training programs are equipped to house, care for, and use rats in microsurgical training. We now use turkey wings for microvascular training. They are cheap, abundant, readily accessible for training, and consistent with tissue quality and vessel size approximating human systems.

Keywords

turkey wing - microsurgery model - microvascular anastomosis - cost analysis - vessel characteristics

• References

• 1 Blackwell KE, Brown MT, Gonzalez D. Overcoming the learning curve in microvascular head and neck reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 123 (12) 1332-1335
• 2 Lascar I, Totir D, Cinca A , et al. Training program and learning curve in experimental microsurgery during the residency in plastic surgery. Microsurgery 2007; 27 (4) 263-267
• 3 Pichierri A, Frati A, Santoro A , et al. How to set up a microsurgical laboratory on small animal models: organization, techniques, and impact on residency training. Neurosurg Rev 2009; 32 (1) 101-110 , discussion 110
• 4 Olabe J, Olabe J. Microsurgical training on an in vitro chicken wing infusion model. Surg Neurol 2009; 72 (6) 695-699
• 5 Douglas HE, Mackay IR. Microvascular surgical training models. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64 (8) e210-e212
• 6 Abla AA, Uschold T, Preul MC, Zabramski JM. Comparative use of turkey and chicken wing brachial artery models for microvascular anastomosis training. J Neurosurg 2011; 115 (6) 1231-1235
• 7 Shima H, Ohno K, Michi K, Egawa K, Takiguchi R. An anatomical study on the forearm vascular system. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1996; 24 (5) 293-299
• 8 Colohan S, Maia M, Langevin CJ , et al. The short- and ultrashort-pedicle deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (2) 331-340
• 9 Thomas BP, Geddes CR, Tang M, Williams J, Morris SF. The vascular basis of the thoracodorsal artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (3) 818-822
• 10 Feng Y, Li WT, Wang NL, Tang PZ, Xu ZG, Zhang B. [Anatomic study of anterolateral thigh perforators flap and its clinical significance in reconstruction of head and neck defects]. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 2010; 32 (1) 81-84
• 11 Janz BA, Thomas PR, Fanua SP, Dunn RE, Wilgis EF, Means Jr KR. Prevention of anastomotic thrombosis by botulinum toxin B after acute injury in a rat model. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36 (10) 1585-1591
• 12 Nam SM, Shin HS, Kim YB, Park ES, Choi CY. Microsurgical training with porcine thigh infusion model. J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29 (5) 303-306
• 13 Brosious JP, Tsuda ST, Menezes JM , et al. Objective evaluation of skill acquisition in novice microsurgeons. J Reconstr Microsurg 2012; 28 (8) 539-542
• 14 Sakrak T, Köse AA, Karabağli Y, Koçman AE, Ozbayoğlu AC, Cetįn C. Rat tail revascularization model for advanced microsurgery training and research. J Reconstr Microsurg 2011; 27 (7) 391-396