| Literature DB >> 32039230 |
Shane Carr1, Bronwyn Reid McDermott2, Niall McInerney1, Alan Hussey1, D Byrne2, Shirley Potter1.
Abstract
Introduction: Microsurgery is an essential element of Plastic Surgery practice. There is a paucity of studies assessing the impact of stress and cognitive distraction on technical microsurgical performance. The ability to complete cognitive and technical skills in parallel has not been assessed in a microsurgical setting. Aim: To test the hypothesis that cognitive distraction and external stressors negatively affect microsurgical performance in a high fidelity simulation setting. Materials/Entities:
Keywords: cognitive distraction; external stress; microsurgery; microsurgical skills; simulation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32039230 PMCID: PMC6987403 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2019.00077
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1Standardized Microsurgical Workstation; 1. Desktop Microscope 45X Zoom, 2. Microsurgical instruments (micro-needle holder, micro-scissors, microsurgical forceps, vessel dilator), 3. 3 ml syringe with water, 4. 8.0 ethilon™ suture.
Figure 2Participant micro-anastomosis; post arteriotomy with intimal wall laid out and visible suture placement.
Figure 3ALI Index: (A) Image demonstrating an error free anastomosis. (B) An anastomosis with multiple errors, (C) Error 1: Disruption of the anastomosis line created by the opposed vessel ends. (D) Error 2: Inadvertently catching the back-or- sidewall when taking suture bites causing occlusion of the lumen. (E) Error 3: Placing of an oblique stitch causing tissue distortion. (F) Error 4: Taking too wide a bite that causes tissue infoldment. (G) Error 5: Placing of a stitch that does not go through the full thickness of the vessel. (H) Error 6: Unequal distancing of sutures that is more than twice what is expected. (I) Error 7: Causing a visible tear in the vessel wall. (J) Error 8: Excessively tight suture that strangulates the tissue. (K) Error 9: Threads left in the lumen. (L) Error 10: Allowing for large edge overlap. Ghanem et al. Anastomosis Lapse Index (ALI): A Validated End Product Assessment Tool for Simulation Microsurgery Training (10).
Participant information on microsurgical experience.
| M | Novice | 0 | ≤ 1 | ≤ 1 | 3 | 0 |
| M | Novice | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| M | Novice | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| F | Novice | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| M | Novice | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| M | Novice | 0 | 0 | ≤ 1 | 10 | 0 |
| F | ST | 1 | 0 | ≤ 1 | 5 | 2 |
| F | ST | 1 | ≤ 1 | ≤ 1 | 15 | 10 |
| F | ST | 1 | 0 | ≥2 | 20 | 3 |
| M | ST | 2 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| M | ST | 1 | ≥2 | ≥2 | 1 | 4 |
| M | Consultant | ≥2 | ≥2 | 0 | 5 | >200 |
| M | Consultant | ≥2 | ≥2 | 0 | 20 | 60 |
| F | Consultant | ≥2 | ≥2 | 0 | 20 | 70 |
Novice, ST, Specialist Trainee, Consultant; SIM, Simulation; in-vivo, live patient.
Figure 4Summary of the TTC of microsurgical anastomosis at baseline vs. TTC with intervention (cognitive distraction and external stress). The breakdown comparison of each subgroup is also illustrated.
Figure 5Illustrates the mean ALI score for each group at baseline compared to ALI score with the introduction of cognitive distraction/stress. Lower ALI score equates to more accurate microsurgical anastomosis.
Figure 6Frequency of each error at baseline vs. with intervention.
Figure 7Overall frequency of each anastomotic error with intervention.