Experimental swine models for perforator flap dissection in reconstructive microsurgery

BACKGROUND: Perforator flaps account for a fraction of reconstructive procedures despite their growing popularity. Specific microsurgical skills are required for successful harvesting of perforator flaps, which are difficult to attain through direct operating room training. Cadaver and small animal dissection cannot simulate human perforator dissection, lacking either bleeding and vessel feedback or providing too small calibers. Thus, we have developed and refined over the last ten years five perforator flaps models in living pig, described their harvesting technique and provided evidence for their effectiveness as perforator flap training models. METHOD: CT angiography data from ten living pigs was used for detailed examination of the integument’s vascular anatomy. Microsurgical techniques were used to standardize and harvest the perforator flaps in acute models. The same operator-assistant team, with no prior perforator flap harvesting experience, raised all flaps in a sequential manner, one animal per day, during a 7 weeks timespan. Porcine flaps were compared to human counterparts in terms of vessel caliber, dissection times. Immediate flap survival was measured as duration of perforator pulsation after completion of flap harvesting, measured every 10 minutes for up to two hours. RESULTS: Five perforator flaps were standardized, based on the deep cranial epigastric, thoracodorsal, lateral intercostal, cranial gluteal and dorsal cervical arteries and the operative technique was described in detail. Mean pig perforator size was 1.24±0.36 mm and mean pedicle diameter was 2.78±0.8 mm, which matched closely the human calibers for each flap. Total harvesting time increased 22.4% between the first two experiments due to a more cautious approach following the lack of perforator pulsation in all flaps in the first experimental animal. A total decrease of 44.4% harvesting time between second and last experiment was observed, as expected with all repetitive surgical procedures. Post-operative perforator pulsation time revealed a steep learning curve, with no or short-term pulsatile perforators in the first five pigs, followed by a 275% increase in total perforator pulsation time between 5(th) and 6(th) experimental animal. Based on these findings we provide a description of the most common mistakes, their consequences and gestures which can be trained using the pig perforator flaps, in order to overcome these mistakes. CONCLUSION: These five pig perforator flap models provide a fast and efficient learning tool to develop perforator flap harvesting skills safely. Surgical training using these five experimental models offers a similar hands-on perforator flap dissection experience as with human tissue, based on the similar sized calibers of both perforators and pedicles with their human counterparts.