Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 31, 2026

Simulator Training for Endovascular Neurosurgery
08:08

Simulator Training for Endovascular Neurosurgery

Published on: May 6, 2020

Randomized objective comparison of live tissue training versus simulators for emergency procedures.

Andrew B Hall1

  • 1Keesler Medical Center, 301 Fisher Street, Keesler AFB, Mississippi 39534, USA. andrew.hall.2@us.af.mil

The American Surgeon
|June 18, 2011
PubMed
Summary

This study found no significant difference in emergency procedure training outcomes between live animal models and simulators. Both methods showed comparable results in chest tube and cricothyroidotomy procedures for Air Force volunteers.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Prospective analysis of whole blood utilisation and implications for blood distribution.

BMJ military health·2024
Same author

Effectiveness of In-Theater Mental Health Assessments.

Military medicine·2024
Same author

The Impact of the Maritime Deployment Cycle on the Surgeon's Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities.

Military medicine·2022
Same author

Declining Military Surgical Cases and the Impact on Military Surgical Graduate Medical Education.

The American surgeon·2022
Same author

Tactical Combat Casualty Care Maritime Scenario: Shipboard Missile Strike.

Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals·2022
Same author

Committee on Surgical Combat Casualty Care position statement on the use of single surgeon teams and invited commentaries.

The journal of trauma and acute care surgery·2022

Area of Science:

  • Medical Education
  • Surgical Simulation
  • Emergency Medicine Training

Background:

  • Objective comparison of live tissue versus simulator training for emergency procedures is lacking.
  • Evaluating training efficacy is crucial for improving procedural outcomes in high-stress environments.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To objectively compare the effectiveness of live animal models versus simulators for emergency procedure training.
  • To determine differences in outcomes for tube thoracostomy and cricothyroidotomy between training groups.

Main Methods:

  • Twenty-four Air Force volunteers with no prior experience were randomized into two groups: live pig model (Sus scrofa domestica) or TraumaMan simulator.
  • Training focused on tube thoracostomy (chest tube) and cricothyroidotomy.

More Related Videos

Creation of a High-Fidelity, Low-Cost, Intraosseous Line Placement Task Trainer via 3D Printing
11:45

Creation of a High-Fidelity, Low-Cost, Intraosseous Line Placement Task Trainer via 3D Printing

Published on: August 17, 2022

Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum
06:48

Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum

Published on: May 20, 2018

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 31, 2026

Simulator Training for Endovascular Neurosurgery
08:08

Simulator Training for Endovascular Neurosurgery

Published on: May 6, 2020

Creation of a High-Fidelity, Low-Cost, Intraosseous Line Placement Task Trainer via 3D Printing
11:45

Creation of a High-Fidelity, Low-Cost, Intraosseous Line Placement Task Trainer via 3D Printing

Published on: August 17, 2022

Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum
06:48

Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum

Published on: May 20, 2018

  • One week post-training, participants were tested on human cadavers, with objective and subjective outcomes recorded.

    • Main Results:

    • No statistically significant differences were observed in completion times or success rates for tube thoracostomy and cricothyroidotomy between the animal model and simulator groups.
    • Average completion times for tube thoracostomy were 2:04 (animal) vs. 1:51 (simulator); cricothyroidotomy was 2:35 (animal) vs. 3:29 (simulator).
    • Confidence levels were slightly higher (9%) in the animal-trained group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.42).

    Conclusions:

    • Live animal models and simulators yield comparable outcomes for emergency procedure training at the 95% confidence interval.
    • While trends suggested potential differences, the study was limited by the number of cadavers needed for higher statistical power.
    • Further research with larger sample sizes may be warranted to explore subtle differences in training efficacy.