Nonliving versus Living Animal Models for Microvascular Surgery Training: A Randomized Comparative Study.

Abstract

Ethical and financial considerations have encouraged the use of nonliving models for simulation-based training in microsurgery, such as commercially available chicken thighs. The purpose of this study was to compare the nonliving chicken thigh model to the one currently considered as the standard-namely, the living rat model-in the setting of an initiation microsurgery course. Applicants to the 3-day basic microsurgery course of the Paris School of Surgery were assigned randomly to either one group that received the regular training of the school (RT group), including four hands-on sessions using only living rat models, or one group that received a modified curriculum in which a nonliving chicken thigh model was used for the first hands-on session (CT group). During the following session, all trainees were evaluated on living rat models, using a global rating scale and two task-specific scales (knot-tying and anastomosis); rates of anastomosis patency, animal survival, and technique completion were recorded. Ninety-three residents were enrolled. Global rating scale, knot-tying, and anastomosis task-specific scale scores were significantly higher in the CT group ( n = 51) than in the RT group, with mean differences of 2.6 points ( P = 0.0001), 1.3 points ( P < 0.0001), and 1.4 points ( P < 0.0001), respectively. Patency and survival rates were significantly higher in the CT group than in the RT group, with mean differences of 22% ( P = 0.0020) and 27% ( P < 0.0001), respectively; completion rates were not statistically different. Subject to the use of validated models, such as the chicken thigh, nonliving animal models are a suitable alternative to the living rat model in microsurgery initial training. The use of validated non-living models, such as the chicken thigh, is a suitable alternative to the living rat model in microsurgery initial training.