Assessment and Evaluation of Microsurgery Training

Bekir Atik^*
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Correspondence to: Bekir Atik, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Received date: January 28, 2025; Accepted date: February 25, 2025; Published date: March 04, 2025
Citation: Atik B. Assessment and Evaluation of Microsurgery Training J Med Res Surg. 2025;6(2):36-39. doi: 10.52916/jmrs254164
Copyright: ©2025 Atik B. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Background: Microsurgery training is very expensive and complex, and achieving a high level of efficiency in a short time is essential. In this study, a scale was developed to make the courses more effective.
Material and Methods: A scale with ranges from Level 1 to Level 10 was created, and each level had to be mastered in order to advance to the next level; processes required to be achieved at each level were listed. When trainees achieved these processes, they could then proceed to the next level.
Discussion: Those who passed Level 5 were considered to be successful, and in this group of trainees, 92% were successful.
Conclusion: There is a program in all courses. Mostly, a program is divided into course days. In this study, it is stated that the programs should be according to the trainee, not the course.

Keywords:

Microsurgery, Education, Assesment, Training, Standardisation.

References

1. Tamai S. History of microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(3):1050.
2. Acland RD:Practice manual for microvascular surgery ( sekond ed) The C.V. Mosby company, St. Louis, 1989.
3. Carrel A. La techni que operatoire des anastomoses vasculaires et la transplantation des visceres. Lyon Med. 1902;98: 859–863.
4. Shurey S, Akelina Y, Legagneux J, Malzone G, Jiga L, Ghanem AM. The rat model in microsurgery education: classical exercises and new horizons. Arch Plast Surg. 2014;41(3):201-208.
5. Bayramiçli M. Experimental Microsurgery Basic Research Tissue And Organ Transplantation Models. 2005.
6. Lee N, Daley RA, Cooley BC. Rat posterior facial vein interpositional graft: a more relevant training model. Microsurgery. 2014;34(8):653-656.
7. Greenberg CC, Ghousseini HN, Pavuluri Quamme SR, et al. Surgical coaching for individual performance improvement. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):32-34.
8. Kim E, Singh M, Akelina Y, et al. Effect of Microvascular Anastomosis Technique on End Product Outcome in Simulated Training: A Prospective Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016;32(7):556-561.
9. Elliott RM, Baldwin KD, Foroohar A, et al. The impact of residency and fellowship training on the practice of microsurgery by members of the american society for surgery of the hand. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69(4):451-458.
10. Al-Bustani S., Halvorson EG. Status of Microsurgical Simulation Training in Plastic Surgery: A Survey of United States Program Directors. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(6):713-716.
11. Honeyman CS. Course review: North East Microsurgery Training Courseand Workshop: A New Two Days Microsurgery Course for Trainees in Plastic Surgery, Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77(3):262-230.