Comparison of a cadaveric pressurized circulation model and an electronic simulator for vascular and endovascular surgery training

BackgroundSimulators are used for improvement of vascular surgical skills. This study compares a cadaveric pressurized circulation model (CPCM) with electronic simulators to perform of endovascular and open procedures.MethodsA cadaveric pressurized simulation model was developed and implemented for Endovascular Aortic Repair and peripheral arterial angioplasties. We utilized a system to infuse the body with an extracorporeal perfusion pump; and participants performed the same endovascular procedures on an electronic simulator. Addtionally, simulation for an open aortic repair was also conducted and evaluated. Data were analyzed with the statistical package SPSS version 22.ResultsWe found significant differences in median comparison between simulators; 100% agree CPCM is very similar to an actual patient, median 5 IQR (4-5) (<i>p</i> = 0.001), it enhances the acquisition of endovascular skills (<i>p</i> = 0.001), offers benefits over other simulators (<i>p</i> = 0.001), and simulated conditions of a real procedure (<i>p</i> = 0.01), likewise can replace animal models (<i>p</i> = 0.001). All participants agree or strongly agree it could help improve the success rate and minimize complications in real patients (<i>p</i> = 0.01).ConclusionsThe cadaveric model provides superior experience fidelity for endovascular training over an electronic simulator.