Subjects
A total of 52 practicing residents, junior and senior surgeons participated in this study. Overall, the cohort presented an average surgical experience of 6.4 years (SD 4.7 years, range 0-20 years). Most participants were neurosurgeons (n=36, 69%), four participants had a background in ENT (8%), each three participants in hand (n=3, 6%) and plastic surgery (n=3, 6%). Nine subjects (17%) had prior experience in microsurgical training courses while only four surgeons (8%) had performed microvascular anastomoses in patients before. 26 participants (50%) had ≤5 years of experience and were retrospectively assigned to subgroup one. The same number of participants (26/52, 50%) had a surgical experience ≥6 years, and they were assigned to subgroup two. Table 4 summarizes the participants’ information and characteristics:
Table 4
|
n in % (n = 52)
|
Male gender
|
58%
|
Specialization of participants:
|
|
Neurosurgery
|
69%
|
ENT
|
8%
|
Hand surgery
|
6%
|
Plastic surgery
|
6%
|
General surgery
|
4%
|
Orthopaedic surgery
|
4%
|
Maxillofacial surgery
|
4%
|
Experience in surgical traineeship:
|
|
≤5 years
|
50%
|
Experience with microscopes and MVD and MVAs:
|
|
Regularly used microscope for operation
|
71%
|
Prior experience in microsurgical training courses
|
17%
|
MVAs performed on patients
|
8%
|
Cohort improvement
The participants performed an average 3.9 anastomoses (SD 1.33) during the two-day course. The score for their first anastomoses averaged at 3.56 points (SD 0.71). The calculated score for the last anastomosis came to an average of 3.80 (SD 0.87), with a difference of 0.34 points (p < 0.001). Graph 1 provides a visualization of the comparative analysis between the average score obtained by the participants’ cohort on their first anastomosis and on the last one.
The steepest learning curve was observed for the placement of knots and handling of the microsuturing threads. The initial average group score for «precision of knots» was 3.50 points (SD 0.83) and improved to a final average score of 3.98 points (SD 0.95), equalling to an overall increase of 0.48 points (p = 0.003). In the category «threads» the participants scored an average of 3.21 points (SD 0.87) for the first sutured anastomosis. With the last anastomosis performed the group achieved a mean of 3.63 total points (SD 1.20). The overall increase with 0.42 points was statistically significant (p = 0.044).
The skill with the least amount of improvement between first and last anastomosis was the total «number of knots» needed. Participants started with an average score of 3.83 points (SD 1.02), the mean after completing the course amounted to 3.90 points (SD 1.12). Therefore, a difference of 0.08 points (p = 0.81) between the first and last anastomosis was documented.
Table 5 summarizes the average scores achieved at beginning and by the end of the course:
Table 5
Subscores
|
∅ score (points) first anastomosis
|
∅ score (points) last anastomosis
|
Mean difference (points) between start and end
|
p-value
|
Borders
|
3.38 (SD 0.91)
|
3.57 (SD 1.25)
|
0.19
|
0.42
|
Number of Knots
|
3.83 (SD 0.99)
|
3.90 (SD 1.14)
|
0.07
|
0.81
|
Symmetry
|
3.50 (SD 0.83)
|
3.69 (SD 1.16)
|
0.19
|
0.36
|
Precision of Knots
|
3.50 (SD 0.83)
|
3.98 (SD 0.95)
|
0.48
|
0.003
|
Threads
|
3.21 (SD 0.87)
|
3.63 (SD 1.20)
|
0.42
|
0.044
|
Patency
|
4.06 (SD 1.08)
|
4.18 (SD 0.99)
|
0.12
|
0.74
|
Leak
|
4.02 (SD 1.19)
|
4.0 (SD 1.08)
|
-0.02
|
0.68
|
Adventitia preparation
|
2.98 (SD 0.87)
|
3.42 (SD 0.84)
|
0.44
|
0.002
|
Improvement according to years of experience
When comparing the total number of calculated points between the first and last sutured anastomosis no significant difference between the experienced and inexperienced participants was visible. For the initial anastomosis, group 1 (less experienced) scored an average of 3.61 points (SD 0.6) while group 2 (more experienced) reached a total average of 3.51 points (SD 0.81). A p-value of 0.06 was detected when comparing the first anastomoses of the two subgroups with each other.
Analysing the individual tasks composing the overall score, group 1 tended to perform marginally better in the first anastomosis, while group 2 averaged a higher score in the last anastomosis. Nonetheless, a statistical significance was not observed. On the last anastomosis group 1 scored 3.74 points and group 2 3.86 points. The difference of the score of the last anastomoses of the two subgroup was at a p-value of 0.7.
Graph 2 visualizes the average scores made for first and last anastomosis according to the subgroups.
Examining the learning curve inside the two subgroups, differences could be appreciated. While for group 1 neither the total calculated score nor any of the subscores showed a significant increase, group 2 showed significant skills improvement. The average total calculated score increased from initially 3.51 points to 3.85 points in the last anastomosis, a difference of 0.34 points (p < 0.001). The most notable improvement of subgroup 2 was seen in the categories «adventitia preparation» (Δ 0.67, p= 0.003), «threads» (Δ 0.73, p= 0.001) and «knots» (Δ 0.58, p= 0.008).
Table 6 summarizes the scores achieved in the different items.
Table 6
Subscores according to group:
|
|
|
|
|
Group 1
|
Ø score first anastomosis
|
Ø score last anastomosis
|
Mean difference (points) between start and end
|
p-value
|
Borders
|
3.46 (SD 0.86)
|
3.64 (SD 1.25)
|
0.18
|
0.77
|
Number of Knots
|
3.77 (SD 0.86)
|
3.80 (SD 1.22)
|
0.03
|
0.87
|
Symmetry
|
3.50 (SD 0.81)
|
3.60 (SD 1.22)
|
0.1
|
0.87
|
Precision of Knots
|
3.58 (SD 0.76)
|
3.96 (SD 0.98)
|
0.38
|
0.133
|
Threads
|
3.27 (SD 0.87)
|
3.36 (SD 1.25)
|
0.09
|
0.90
|
Patency
|
4.04 (SD 0.96)
|
4.08 (SD 1.08)
|
0.04
|
0.87
|
Leak
|
4.04 (SD 1.11)
|
4.08 (SD 0.91)
|
0.04
|
0.89
|
Microvascular Dissection
|
3.19 (SD 0.75)
|
3.40 (SD 0.76)
|
0.21
|
0.18
|
Group 2
|
|
|
|
|
Borders
|
3.31 (SD 0.97)
|
3.50 (SD 1.27)
|
0.19
|
0.35
|
Number of Knots
|
3.88 (SD 1.18)
|
4.0 (SD 1.02)
|
0.12
|
0.59
|
Symmetry
|
3.50 (SD 1.14)
|
3.77 (SD 1.11)
|
0.27
|
0.26
|
Precision of Knots
|
3.42 (SD 0.90)
|
4.0 (SD 0.94)
|
0.68
|
0.008
|
Threads
|
3.15 (SD 0.88)
|
3.88 (SD 1.11)
|
0.73
|
0.001
|
Patency
|
4.08 (SD 1.22)
|
4.27 (SD 0.92)
|
0.19
|
0.56
|
Leak
|
4.00 (SD 1.29)
|
3.92 (SD 1.23)
|
- 0.08
|
0.66
|
Microvascular Dissection
|
2.77 (SD 0.95)
|
3.44 (SD 0.92)
|
0.67
|
0.003
|
User satisfaction
A total of 49 subjects (49/52, 94%) completed the questionnaire at the end of the second day of the course.
The majority of participants perceived the placental dissection to be very similar (18/45, 40%, 5/5 points) or similar (18/45, 40% 4/5 points) to an actual vessel dissection.
44 subjects (44/49, 90%) rated the importance of the placental lab exercise with 5/5 points (very important). The remaining five participants (5/49, 10%) perceived the dissection as important (4/5 points).
A total of 27 participants (27/39, 69%) valued the placental dissection as very important (5/5 points) and nine people (9/39, 23%) assessed the importance of a continuous training as 4/5 points (important). Two participants (2/39, 5%) defined as ‘reasonably important’ the continuous training with the placenta simulator (3/5 points), whereas only one participant (1/39, 3%) defined it as of ‘poor importance’.
With 26 subjects (26/38, 68%) the majority rated an extended training as very important (5/5 points) and nine people (9/38, 24%) thought it to be important (4/5 points).
Graph 3 presents the results of the user satisfaction questionnaire.