ArticleJournal of hand and microsurgery2024
A simple, novel technique to create silicone vessels for microsurgical training.
Article in Journal of hand and microsurgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Effective microsurgical training necessitates dedicated practice, prompting the development of simulation models that mitigate the hygiene risks, regulatory challenges, and storage difficulties associated with conventional biological models. This study aims to evaluate the preferences of microsurgeons and medical students regarding self-made silicone simulation vessels, comparing them to standard biological models. Methods: A three-part jig, comprising of a two-part metal clamp component and a transparent acrylic block with 4x4 channels, was designed. This assembly produced 16 vessels with a 1 mm inner diameter. Liquid silicone (Ecoflex 00-30), readily accessible from online distributors, was injected into the channels using a syringe. After tightening the clamp component and inserting 16 1 mm k-wires, the vessels were left to set for approximately 24 h 20 medical students with no prior microsurgical experience and 10 microsurgery-trained surgeons then evaluated these silicone vessels against a commonly used biological model (chicken brachial artery for surgeons or chicken aorta for students). Participants were then surveyed about their preference for a specific model for frequent practice using a 10-point Likert scale. Results and conclusion: In assessing ideal microsurgical training models, all participants highlighted the importance of realism. Surgeons' main practical considerations were hygiene, availability, and setup and storage ease, while medical students were primarily concerned with cost-effectiveness. Both surgeons and medical students perceived the biological model as more realistic, yet less hygienic and harder to set up and store. Conversely, the silicone model, though deemed less realistic, offered advantages in hygiene, availability, cost-effectiveness, and setup and storage simplicity. The silicone model emerged as the overall favorite amongst all participants for frequent practice. Silicone vessels may serve as a complementary adjunct to biological models, allowing surgeons-in-training to practice their skills outside of the operating room and lab settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.