OBJECTIVES: As airway management specialists, thoracic surgeons should be familiar with percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. To optimize the learning curve, we propose a home-made pig model obtained from a slaughterhouse for training residents in the technical aspects of performing percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. The satisfaction of the residents' training experience using this model was compared with that using a standard manikin model. METHODS:Fifty residents participated in the present study. At the end of the session, each participant completed a questionnaire assessing the pig model and the manikin by assigning a score (ranging from 1 to 4) to five specific characteristics including (i) reality of skin turgor; (ii) landmark recognition; (iii) feasibility of the procedure; (iv) reality of the model and (v) preference of each model. The differences between models were statistically analysed. RESULTS:Forty-five participants completed the study. The pig model, compared with the manikin model, presented a higher value regarding the reality of skin turgor (1.7 ± 0.5 vs 0.4 ± 0.8; respectively, P < 0.0001); landmark recognition (3.8 ± 0.5 vs 2.0 ± 0.5; respectively; P < 0.0001) and reality of the model (3.0 ± 0.8 vs 1.3 ± 1.0; respectively; P < 0.0001). No difference was found regarding the feasibility of the procedure (3.7 ± 0.6 vs 3.5 ± 0.5; respectively, P = 0.1). The pig model was preferred to the manikin (3.2 ± 0.7 vs 1.6 ± 1.0; respectively, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our pig model allowed residents to develop the skills required for successful percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. In particular, they developed confidence with certain manoeuvres such as needle and guide-wire placement, dilatation of the trachea and insertion of a cannula, before attempting the procedure on a live patient.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: As airway management specialists, thoracic surgeons should be familiar with percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. To optimize the learning curve, we propose a home-made pig model obtained from a slaughterhouse for training residents in the technical aspects of performing percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. The satisfaction of the residents' training experience using this model was compared with that using a standard manikin model. METHODS: Fifty residents participated in the present study. At the end of the session, each participant completed a questionnaire assessing the pig model and the manikin by assigning a score (ranging from 1 to 4) to five specific characteristics including (i) reality of skin turgor; (ii) landmark recognition; (iii) feasibility of the procedure; (iv) reality of the model and (v) preference of each model. The differences between models were statistically analysed. RESULTS: Forty-five participants completed the study. The pig model, compared with the manikin model, presented a higher value regarding the reality of skin turgor (1.7 ± 0.5 vs 0.4 ± 0.8; respectively, P < 0.0001); landmark recognition (3.8 ± 0.5 vs 2.0 ± 0.5; respectively; P < 0.0001) and reality of the model (3.0 ± 0.8 vs 1.3 ± 1.0; respectively; P < 0.0001). No difference was found regarding the feasibility of the procedure (3.7 ± 0.6 vs 3.5 ± 0.5; respectively, P = 0.1). The pig model was preferred to the manikin (3.2 ± 0.7 vs 1.6 ± 1.0; respectively, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our pig model allowed residents to develop the skills required for successful percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. In particular, they developed confidence with certain manoeuvres such as needle and guide-wire placement, dilatation of the trachea and insertion of a cannula, before attempting the procedure on a live patient.