OBJECTIVE: We evaluated focused training in coronary artery anastomosis with a porcine heart model and portable task station. METHODS: At "Boot Camp," 33 first-year cardiothoracic surgical residents participated in 4-hour coronary anastomosis sessions (6-7 attending surgeons per group of 8-9 residents). At beginning, midpoint, and session end, anastomosis components were assessed on a 3-point rating scale (1 good, 2 average, 3 below average). Performances were video recorded and reviewed by 3 surgeons in a blinded fashion. Participants completed questionnaires at session end, with follow-up surveys at 6 months. RESULTS: Ten to 18 end-to-side anastomoses with porcine model and task station were performed. Initial assessments ranged from 2.11 +/- 0.58 (forceps use) to 2.44 +/- 0.48 (needle angles). Midpoint scores ranged from 1.76 +/- 0.63 (forceps use) to 1.91 +/- 0.49 (needle angles). Session end scores ranged from 1.29 +/- 0.45 (needle holder use) to 1.58 +/- 0.50 (needle transfer and suture management and tension; P < .001). Video recordings confirmed improved performance (interrater reliability >0.5). All respondents agreed that task station and porcine model were good methods of training. At 6 months, respondents noted that the anastomosis session provided a basis for training; however, only slightly more than half continued to practice outside the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Four-hour focused training with porcine model and task station resulted in improved ability to perform anastomoses. Boot Camp may be useful in preparing residents for coronary anastomosis in the clinical setting, but emphasis on simulation development and deliberate practice is necessary. Published by Mosby, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated focused training in coronary artery anastomosis with a porcine heart model and portable task station. METHODS: At "Boot Camp," 33 first-year cardiothoracic surgical residents participated in 4-hour coronary anastomosis sessions (6-7 attending surgeons per group of 8-9 residents). At beginning, midpoint, and session end, anastomosis components were assessed on a 3-point rating scale (1 good, 2 average, 3 below average). Performances were video recorded and reviewed by 3 surgeons in a blinded fashion. Participants completed questionnaires at session end, with follow-up surveys at 6 months. RESULTS: Ten to 18 end-to-side anastomoses with porcine model and task station were performed. Initial assessments ranged from 2.11 +/- 0.58 (forceps use) to 2.44 +/- 0.48 (needle angles). Midpoint scores ranged from 1.76 +/- 0.63 (forceps use) to 1.91 +/- 0.49 (needle angles). Session end scores ranged from 1.29 +/- 0.45 (needle holder use) to 1.58 +/- 0.50 (needle transfer and suture management and tension; P < .001). Video recordings confirmed improved performance (interrater reliability >0.5). All respondents agreed that task station and porcine model were good methods of training. At 6 months, respondents noted that the anastomosis session provided a basis for training; however, only slightly more than half continued to practice outside the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Four-hour focused training with porcine model and task station resulted in improved ability to perform anastomoses. Boot Camp may be useful in preparing residents for coronary anastomosis in the clinical setting, but emphasis on simulation development and deliberate practice is necessary. Published by Mosby, Inc.
Authors: D J Scott; R V Rege; P C Bergen; W A Guo; R Laycock; S T Tesfay; R J Valentine; D B Jones Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Paul S Ramphal; Daniel N Coore; Michael P Craven; Neil F Forbes; Somara M Newman; Adrian A Coye; Sherard G Little; Brian C Silvera Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Carol-Anne E Moulton; Adam Dubrowski; Helen Macrae; Brent Graham; Ethan Grober; Richard Reznick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: James I Fann; Anthony D Caffarelli; Gerald Georgette; Steve K Howard; David M Gaba; Patricia Youngblood; R Scott Mitchell; Thomas A Burdon Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2008-10-23 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Scott R Ceresnak; David M Axelrod; Kara S Motonaga; Emily R Johnson; Catherine D Krawczeski Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Scott R Ceresnak; David M Axelrod; Loren D Sacks; Kara S Motonaga; Emily R Johnson; Catherine D Krawczeski Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2017-02-04 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Miguel Angel Maluf; Walter José Gomes; Ademir Massarico Bras; Thiago Cavalcante Vila Nova de Araújo; André Lupp Mota; Caio Cesar Cardoso; Rafael Viana dos S Coutinho Journal: Braz J Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2015 Sep-Oct
Authors: Matthew G Drake; Nirav G Shah; May Lee; Anna Brady; Geoffrey R Connors; Brendan J Clark; Patricia A Kritek; Jennifer W McCallister; Kristin M Burkart; Isabel Pedraza; Daniel Jamieson; Jennifer L Ingram; Lauren Lynch; Samir S Makani; Jennifer Siegel-Gasiewski; Eileen M Larsson; Edith T Zemanick; Deborah R Liptzin; Ryan Good; Laura E Crotty Alexander Journal: ATS Sch Date: 2020-12-22