June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Full-thickness eyelid laceration repair: human cadaver versus cadaveric pig head as a model for teaching ophthalmology residents
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Grant Carlisle
    Ophthalmology, Penn State Health Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Saager Patel
    Ophthalmology, Penn State Health Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Christopher Weller
    Ophthalmology, Penn State Health Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Grant Carlisle None; Saager Patel None; Christopher Weller None
  • Footnotes
    Support  GME Innovation in Health Systems Science Award
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 1076 – A0171. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Grant Carlisle, Saager Patel, Christopher Weller; Full-thickness eyelid laceration repair: human cadaver versus cadaveric pig head as a model for teaching ophthalmology residents. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):1076 – A0171.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of human cadaver and cadaveric pig head as a model to educate ophthalmology residents with the understanding and ability to perform full-thickness eyelid laceration repair at a single institution.

Methods : Ophthalmology residents at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center were anonymously surveyed using a Likert questionnaire inquiring about their comfort and ability to perform a full-thickness eyelid laceration repair. Answers included options 1 (“Incomplete understanding”) - 5 (“Mastery”). The survey was administered pre-intervention (n=9), post-human cadaveric model (n=9), and post-pig cadaveric model (n=8). Prior to working with the model, residents were given a 20-minute tutorial introducing clinical approach to laceration repair as well as a detailed explanation on how to approach the procedure. Wet-labs with either model included one 2-hour session. Survey results were compared using two-tailed Student’s t-test.

Results : Pre-curriculum survey results for full-thickness eyelid laceration repair included the following: “Mean Score Knowledge” PGY2(2.0), PGY3(2.0), PGY4(3.0) and “Mean Score Performance” PGY-2(1.7), PGY-3(2.0), PGY-4(3.3). Thirty-three percent of residents were comfortable with being the primary surgeon during repair. Post-survey results after using a human cadaver model: “Mean Score Knowledge” PGY2(2.7), PGY3(4.3), PGY4(3.3) and “Mean Score Performance” PGY-2(2.0), PGY-3(4.3), PGY-4(3.7). Seventy-eight percent of residents were comfortable being the primary surgeon for repair after training on the human cadaver model. Cadaveric pig head model post-survey results are pending. All training years reported in improvement in knowledge and ability to perform eyelid-laceration repairs after training with a human cadaver.

Conclusions : Human cadavers significantly improved ophthalmology resident’s knowledge and ability to perform full-thickness eyelid laceration. Cadaveric pig heads may be a useful and more affordable model for educating ophthalmology residents with the understanding and ability to perform eyelid-margin involving laceration repair.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×