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.

[1]  E. Park,et al.  Microsurgical Training with Porcine Thigh Infusion Model , 2013, Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery.

[2]  S. Tsuda,et al.  Objective Evaluation of Skill Acquisition in Novice Microsurgeons , 2012, Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery.

[3]  M. Preul,et al.  Comparative use of turkey and chicken wing brachial artery models for microvascular anastomosis training. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery.

[4]  K. Means,et al.  Prevention of anastomotic thrombosis by botulinum toxin B after acute injury in a rat model. , 2011, The Journal of hand surgery.

[5]  I. Mackay,et al.  Microvascular surgical training models. , 2011, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.

[6]  A. Köse,et al.  Rat tail revascularization model for advanced microsurgery training and research. , 2011, Journal of reconstructive microsurgery.

[7]  Zhengang Xu,et al.  [Anatomic study of anterolateral thigh perforators flap and its clinical significance in reconstruction of head and neck defects]. , 2010, Zhongguo yi xue ke xue yuan xue bao. Acta Academiae Medicinae Sinicae.

[8]  J. Olabe,et al.  Microsurgical training on an in vitro chicken wing infusion model. , 2009, Surgical neurology.

[9]  B. Thomas,et al.  The Vascular Basis of the Thoracodorsal Artery Perforator Flap , 2005, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[10]  K. Blackwell,et al.  Overcoming the learning curve in microvascular head and neck reconstruction. , 1997, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[11]  K. Michi,et al.  An anatomical study on the forearm vascular system. , 1996, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[12]  R. Delfini,et al.  How to set up a microsurgical laboratory on small animal models: organization, techniques, and impact on residency training , 2008, Neurosurgical Review.

[13]  D. Zamfirescu,et al.  Training program and learning curve in experimental microsurgery during the residency in plastic surgery , 2007, Microsurgery.