Lelio Guida, Martina Sebök, Marcelo Magaldi Oliveira, Christiaan Hendrik Bas van Niftrik, Fady T Charbel, Marco Cenzato, Luca Regli, Giuseppe Esposito
{"title":"神经外科微血管吻合术:现有模拟器的系统回顾和新培训分类系统的建议。","authors":"Lelio Guida, Martina Sebök, Marcelo Magaldi Oliveira, Christiaan Hendrik Bas van Niftrik, Fady T Charbel, Marco Cenzato, Luca Regli, Giuseppe Esposito","doi":"10.3390/brainsci14101031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The literature lacks a combined analysis of neurosurgical microvascular anastomosis training models. We performed a systematic literature search to provide an overview of the existing models and proposed a classification system based on the level of simulation and reproducibility of the microvascular anastomosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic literature search followed the PRISMA guidelines. We consulted MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and EMBASE independently for papers about bypass training models. Every training model was analyzed according to six tasks supposed to esteem their fidelity to the real operative setting by using a scoring system from zero to two. Finally, authors classified the models into five classes, from A to E, by summing the individual scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 109 papers for analysis. Training models were grouped into synthetic tubes, ex vivo models (animal vessels, fresh human cadavers, human placentas) and in vivo simulators (live animals-rats, rabbits, pigs). By applying the proposed classification system, live animals and placentas obtained the highest scores, falling into class A (excellent simulators). Human cadavers and animal vessels (ex vivo) were categorized in class B (good simulators), followed by synthetic tubes (class C, reasonable simulators).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proposed classification system helps the neurosurgeon to analyze the available training models for microvascular anastomosis critically, and to choose the most appropriate one according to the skills they need to improve.</p>","PeriodicalId":9095,"journal":{"name":"Brain Sciences","volume":"14 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11505727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neurosurgical Microvascular Anastomosis: Systematic Review of the Existing Simulators and Proposal of a New Training Classification System.\",\"authors\":\"Lelio Guida, Martina Sebök, Marcelo Magaldi Oliveira, Christiaan Hendrik Bas van Niftrik, Fady T Charbel, Marco Cenzato, Luca Regli, Giuseppe Esposito\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/brainsci14101031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The literature lacks a combined analysis of neurosurgical microvascular anastomosis training models. We performed a systematic literature search to provide an overview of the existing models and proposed a classification system based on the level of simulation and reproducibility of the microvascular anastomosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic literature search followed the PRISMA guidelines. We consulted MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and EMBASE independently for papers about bypass training models. Every training model was analyzed according to six tasks supposed to esteem their fidelity to the real operative setting by using a scoring system from zero to two. Finally, authors classified the models into five classes, from A to E, by summing the individual scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 109 papers for analysis. Training models were grouped into synthetic tubes, ex vivo models (animal vessels, fresh human cadavers, human placentas) and in vivo simulators (live animals-rats, rabbits, pigs). By applying the proposed classification system, live animals and placentas obtained the highest scores, falling into class A (excellent simulators). Human cadavers and animal vessels (ex vivo) were categorized in class B (good simulators), followed by synthetic tubes (class C, reasonable simulators).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proposed classification system helps the neurosurgeon to analyze the available training models for microvascular anastomosis critically, and to choose the most appropriate one according to the skills they need to improve.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain Sciences\",\"volume\":\"14 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11505727/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14101031\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14101031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:文献缺乏对神经外科微血管吻合训练模型的综合分析。我们进行了系统的文献检索,对现有模型进行了概述,并根据微血管吻合的模拟程度和可重复性提出了一个分类系统:系统性文献检索遵循 PRISMA 指南。我们独立检索了 MEDLINE、Web of Knowledge 和 EMBASE 中有关搭桥训练模型的文献。每个训练模型都根据六项任务进行了分析,这六项任务的目的是通过从 0 到 2 的评分系统来评估模型与真实手术环境的忠实度。最后,作者将各模型的得分相加,分为 A 至 E 五个等级:本研究共纳入 109 篇论文进行分析。训练模型分为合成管、体外模型(动物血管、新鲜人类尸体、人类胎盘)和体内模拟器(活体动物--大鼠、兔子、猪)。根据建议的分类系统,活体动物和胎盘得分最高,属于 A 类(优秀模拟器)。人体尸体和动物血管(体外)被归为 B 类(良好模拟器),其次是合成管(C 类,合理模拟器):建议的分类系统有助于神经外科医生对现有的微血管吻合训练模型进行严格分析,并根据他们需要提高的技能选择最合适的模型。
Neurosurgical Microvascular Anastomosis: Systematic Review of the Existing Simulators and Proposal of a New Training Classification System.
Background: The literature lacks a combined analysis of neurosurgical microvascular anastomosis training models. We performed a systematic literature search to provide an overview of the existing models and proposed a classification system based on the level of simulation and reproducibility of the microvascular anastomosis.
Methods: The systematic literature search followed the PRISMA guidelines. We consulted MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and EMBASE independently for papers about bypass training models. Every training model was analyzed according to six tasks supposed to esteem their fidelity to the real operative setting by using a scoring system from zero to two. Finally, authors classified the models into five classes, from A to E, by summing the individual scores.
Results: This study included 109 papers for analysis. Training models were grouped into synthetic tubes, ex vivo models (animal vessels, fresh human cadavers, human placentas) and in vivo simulators (live animals-rats, rabbits, pigs). By applying the proposed classification system, live animals and placentas obtained the highest scores, falling into class A (excellent simulators). Human cadavers and animal vessels (ex vivo) were categorized in class B (good simulators), followed by synthetic tubes (class C, reasonable simulators).
Conclusions: The proposed classification system helps the neurosurgeon to analyze the available training models for microvascular anastomosis critically, and to choose the most appropriate one according to the skills they need to improve.
期刊介绍:
Brain Sciences (ISSN 2076-3425) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes and short communications in the areas of cognitive neuroscience, developmental neuroscience, molecular and cellular neuroscience, neural engineering, neuroimaging, neurolinguistics, neuropathy, systems neuroscience, and theoretical and computational neuroscience. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.