Trauma surgical simulation: discussing the replacement of live animals used as human patient simulators.

Debate Discussion Live animal Simulation Surgery Trauma

Journal

Advances in simulation (London, England)
ISSN: 2059-0628
Titre abrégé: Adv Simul (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101700425

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Feb 2024
Historique:
received: 12 10 2023
accepted: 30 01 2024
medline: 12 2 2024
pubmed: 12 2 2024
entrez: 11 2 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Despite advances in simulator technology, live anaesthetised animals continue to be used as human patient simulators for medical professionals to practice techniques in the management of surgical trauma. This article describes the process of convening a working group of individuals with a professional interest in simulation to discuss the use of live animals and consider if and how they can be replaced in the future. A working group was formed of voluntary attendees to a workshop held at the SESAM 2023 conference. Iterative discussions reflecting on the topic were used to produce statements summarising the working group's opinions. The working group determined that live animals are used as human patient simulators due to the presence of accurate and responsive physiology in the presence of bleeding, realistic tissue tactility and an emotional response experienced by the learner due to interaction with the animal. They were unable to reach a consensus on replacement, determining that there is currently no single model which is able to provide all the learning aspects which a live animal model can provide. Several suggestions were made regarding development of technologies and pedagogical change. Replacement of live animals in surgical simulation is not straightforward but should be an aspiration, if possible. For the ongoing development of trauma surgical simulation models, it is important to combine the knowledge, skills and perspectives of medical stakeholders and educators, academic researchers and industry experts in producing alternative options to the use of live animal simulators.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Despite advances in simulator technology, live anaesthetised animals continue to be used as human patient simulators for medical professionals to practice techniques in the management of surgical trauma. This article describes the process of convening a working group of individuals with a professional interest in simulation to discuss the use of live animals and consider if and how they can be replaced in the future.
MAIN BODY METHODS
A working group was formed of voluntary attendees to a workshop held at the SESAM 2023 conference. Iterative discussions reflecting on the topic were used to produce statements summarising the working group's opinions. The working group determined that live animals are used as human patient simulators due to the presence of accurate and responsive physiology in the presence of bleeding, realistic tissue tactility and an emotional response experienced by the learner due to interaction with the animal. They were unable to reach a consensus on replacement, determining that there is currently no single model which is able to provide all the learning aspects which a live animal model can provide. Several suggestions were made regarding development of technologies and pedagogical change.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Replacement of live animals in surgical simulation is not straightforward but should be an aspiration, if possible. For the ongoing development of trauma surgical simulation models, it is important to combine the knowledge, skills and perspectives of medical stakeholders and educators, academic researchers and industry experts in producing alternative options to the use of live animal simulators.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38342893
doi: 10.1186/s41077-024-00279-2
pii: 10.1186/s41077-024-00279-2
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

7

Informations de copyright

© 2024. Crown.

Références

Sadideen H, Hamaoui K, Saadeddin M, Kneebone R. Simulators and the simulation environment: getting the balance right in simulation-based surgical education. Int J Surg. 2012;10(9):458–62.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.08.010 pubmed: 22935356
Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria S Jr, Jacobson L, Quinones J, Shen B, et al. The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence? Mt Sinai J. 2009;76(4):330–43.
doi: 10.1002/msj.20127
Badash I, Burtt K, Solorzano CA, Carey JN. Innovations in surgery simulation: a review of past, current and future techniques. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(23):453.
doi: 10.21037/atm.2016.12.24 pubmed: 28090509 pmcid: 5220028
Swain CS, Cohen HML, Helgesson G, Rickard RF, Karlgren K. A systematic review of live animal use as a simulation modality (“live tissue training”) in the emergency management of trauma. J Surg Educ. 2023;80(9):1320–39.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2023.06.018 pubmed: 37516576
Bergmeister KD, Aman M, Kramer A, Schenck TL, Riedl O, Daeschler SC, et al. Simulating surgical skills in animals: systematic review, costs & acceptance analyses. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:570852
Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. London, UK: Methuen; 1959.
Balls M. The European citizens’ stop vivisection initiative. London: SAGE Publications Sage UK; 2015. p. 147–50.
Henry S, Brasel KJ, Josesph K. ATLS at 40: Distinguished past, bright future. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons. 2018; 103(3). Available from: https://bulletin.facs.org/2018/03/atls-at-40-distinguished-past-bright-future/ .
Bilello L, Ketterer A, Yarza S, Chiu D, Rosen C. Procedural training models among emergency medicine residency programs. Clini Exp Emerg Med. 2021;8(1):37.
doi: 10.15441/ceem.20.088
Da Luz LT, Nascimento B, Tien H, Kim MJ, Nathens AB, Vlachos S, et al. Current use of live tissue training in trauma: a descriptive systematic review. Can J Surg. 2015;58(3 Suppl 3):S125.
doi: 10.1503/cjs.014114 pubmed: 26100772 pmcid: 4467511
Goolsby C, Branting A, Ausman J, Williams D, Ausman C, David J, et al. Systematic review of live tissue versus simulation education for prehospital trauma providers. Mil Med. 2017;182(9–10):e1824–33.
doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-17-00026 pubmed: 28885943
Savage EC, Tenn C, Vartanian O, Blackler K, Sullivan-Kwantes W, Garrett M, et al. A comparison of live tissue training and high-fidelity patient simulator: a pilot study in battlefield trauma training. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79(4):S157–63.
doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000668 pubmed: 26131783
Peng HT, Tenn C, Vartanian O, Rhind SG, Jarmasz J, Tien H, et al. Biological response to stress during battlefield trauma training: live tissue versus high-fidelity patient simulator. Mil Med. 2018;183(9):e349–56.
doi: 10.1093/milmed/usx236 pubmed: 29547968
Bukoski A, Uhlich R, Bowling F, Shapiro M, Kerby JD, Llerena L, et al. Perceptions of simulator-and live tissue-based combat casualty care training of senior special operations medics. Mil Med. 2018;183(supp_1):78–85.
doi: 10.1093/milmed/usx136 pubmed: 29635549
Mahoney A, Reade M, Moffat M. Experiences of medical practitioners in the Australian Defence Force on live tissue trauma training. BMJ Mil Health. 2023;169:122–6.
Ellaway RH, Kehoe A, Illing J. Critical realism and realist inquiry in medical education. Acad Med. 2020;95(7):984–8.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003232 pubmed: 32101916
Bowyer MW, Fransman RB. Simulation in general surgery. In: Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Sweet R, editors. Comprehensive healthcare simulation: surgery and surgical subspecialties. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 171–83.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-98276-2_15
Mackenzie CF, Tisherman SA, Shackelford S, Sevdalis N, Elster E, Bowyer MW. Efficacy of trauma surgery technical skills training courses. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(3):832–43.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.10.004 pubmed: 30827743
Mackenzie CF, Harris TE, Shipper AG, Elster E, Bowyer MW. Virtual reality and haptic interfaces for civilian and military open trauma surgery training: a systematic review. Injury. 2022;53(11):3575–85.
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.08.003 pubmed: 36123192
Danion J, Breque C, Oriot D, Faure JP, Richer JP. SimLife® technology in surgical training–a dynamic simulation model. J Vis Surg. 2020;157(3, Supplement 2):S117–22.
doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2020.02.013
SynDaver. https://syndaver.com/product/syntissue-surgical-model/ . Accessed 27 September 2023
Strategic Operations. https://www.strategic-operations.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CS-SURG . Accessed 27 September 2023
Cope AC, Mavroveli S, Bezemer J, Hanna GB, Kneebone R. Making meaning from sensory cues: a qualitative investigation of postgraduate learning in the operating room. Acad Med. 2015;90(8):1125–31.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000740 pubmed: 25922919
Xu F, Dawson C, Lamb M, Mueller E, Stefanek E, Akbari M, et al. Hydrogels for tissue engineering: addressing key design needs toward clinical translation. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:849831.
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.849831 pubmed: 35600900 pmcid: 9119391
Yu S, Xu X, Ma L, Cao L, Mao J, Chen H, et al. Emerging frontiers in surgical training: progress in 3D printed gel models. J 3D Printing Med. 2023;7(3):3DP013.
Kumar A, Han SS. PVA-based hydrogels for tissue engineering: a review. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater. 2017;66(4):159–82.
doi: 10.1080/00914037.2016.1190930
Li P, Yang Z, Jiang S. Tissue mimicking materials in image-guided needle-based interventions: a review. Mater Sci Eng, C. 2018;93:1116–31.
doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.09.028
Cooper AB, Tisdell EJ. Embodied aspects of learning to be a surgeon. Med Teach. 2020;42(5):515–22.
doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1708289 pubmed: 31944141
Choi W, Dyens O, Chan T, Schijven M, Lajoie S, Mancini ME, et al. Engagement and learning in simulation: recommendations of the Simnovate Engaged Learning Domain Group. 2017.
Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Cook DA. Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Acad Med. 2014;89(3):387–92.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000130 pubmed: 24448038
Aggarwal R, Mytton OT, Derbrew M, Hananel D, Heydenburg M, Issenberg B, et al. Training and simulation for patient safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2010;19(Suppl 2):i34–43.
doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.038562

Auteurs

Cara Swain (C)

Department of Learning, Informatics, Management & Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. cara.swain@ki.se.
Academic Department of Military Surgery & Trauma, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM), Birmingham, UK. cara.swain@ki.se.

Natalia Stathakarou (N)

Department of Learning, Informatics, Management & Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Pilar Alzuguren (P)

Medical Engineering Laboratory, School of Medicine, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

Vincent Lemarteleur (V)

Unité de Recherche en Biomatériaux Innovants Et Interfaces (URB2i), Healthcare Simulation Department, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.

Ryan Moffatt (R)

Northern Ireland Medical & Dental Training Agency, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Klas Karlgren (K)

Department of Learning, Informatics, Management & Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Research, Education, Development & Innovation, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.

Classifications MeSH