The complexity of modern
surgical techniques and the development of new technologies make risks
unavoidable in the operating room. In fact, errors in the operating room can
cause irreparable harm to patients or death [1,2]. Therefore, it is incumbent
on surgeons to preoperatively plan their cases by running simulations that
target emergent crises. Simulations have been extensively utilized by other
professions prior to its implementation in medicine. For example, the
performance of a pianist is easily distinguishable if the pianist spends a
greater amount of time in solitary practice separate from the required time
spent in training by the musical ensemble [3]. Likewise, simulated scenarios in
aviation can be used to train flight crews to manage and prepare for unexpected
situations [4,5]. Extrapolating these examples to the surgical realm, it
becomes clear that repetitive simulated exercises that rely on prior knowledge
and informative feedback improves performance in the operating room [1]. Also,
simulation models are incorporated into surgical trainee programs to mitigate
the current landscape of work hour restrictions on surgical residents so as to
ensure that surgical residents attain proficiency on complex technical skills
and develop the level of operative experience needed to work independently
[6-9].
Simulation models provide
a practical experience guided by reflection in a risk-free and low stress
environment; hence, it becomes evident why a majority of surgical
subspecialties implement simulation models as part of residency training
[10-12]. Simulation strategies can be divided into: 1) interdisciplinary
(single specialty) simulation which focuses on technical skill acquisition and
2) multidisciplinary (multiple specialties) simulation which focuses on
improving communication errors, decision making, and teamwork dynamics (e.g.
non-technical skills) [13-14]. The multidisciplinary approach recognizes that
the technically skilled surgeon does not work alone in the operating room and
must communicate effectively with the surgical team to ensure patient safety
and reduce clinical errors [16]. Team members participating in
multidisciplinary simulations are debriefed following the simulation on a
one-on-one basis or with the whole team. Furthermore, the multidisciplinary
approach encourages the participant to comment on their own performance using
team-based assessment tools or performance surveys [17-19]. Findings from
several studies have demonstrated that participation in medical team training
exercises improved team confidence, patient outcome and lowered surgical
mortality [14-21]. The multidisciplinary approach is gaining recognition in
several surgical subspecialties though still in its infancy.
Surgical simulation
models are broadly categorized into four distinct classes, which include: 1)
animal models, 2) human cadaveric models, 3) synthetic models, and 4) virtual
or robot-assisted models [10,21-24]. Each model can be further categorized into
low-fidelity or high fidelity, which describes the closeness of the model to
reality. Low-fidelity models such as suturing or knot-tying are often suited
for the early career surgeon, while high-fidelity models which replicate an
entire surgical operation with high realism are best suited for the
intermediate or advanced surgeon [15]. The use of human cadavers as a model of
simulation is often regarded to as the gold standard of simulation due to its
approximation to human living tissue, realistic anatomy, and the appreciation
of anatomic variations which may be present in live patients [24,25]. Despite
human cadaveric models providing an adequate representation of human anatomy
they fail to emulate physiological conditions or tissue bleeding compared to
live animal models [23]. Human cadaveric and animal models often require
regular maintenance, storage, and ethical approval which may delay their
implementation into the surgical trainee curricula [22,23]. Synthetic models
are often used to circumvent the limitations of utilizing human cadaveric and
animal models. Synthetic models are able to recapitulate realistic anatomic
consistencies but fail to replicate soft tissue consistency [22-26]. In
comparison to the aforementioned models, virtual simulators have only been
developed in recent decades, and are yet to be fully implemented in the
surgical trainee curricula [27]. A unique advantage of the virtual model is the
ability to recreate rare surgical cases that the surgical trainee may not
otherwise encounter [28]. Despite the preference for human cadaveric, animal, and
synthetic models over virtual simulators, there is a growing expansion and
shift towards virtual and robot-assisted simulators due to their versatility
and considerable evidence demonstrating that virtual simulators improve
operative time and surgical performance [10, 29-31]. A major drawback towards
the implementation of simulation models is – cost [32,33]. Nevertheless, it is
evident that the benefit of utilizing surgical simulators clearly outweighs the
prohibitive cost since several studies have demonstrated that modelling
operative experience improved familiarity with equipment, effective
communication, trainee confidence, and most importantly patient outcome
[15,22-26]. Recent technological advancements like 3D printing introduce a
cost-effective approach that enables the rapid development of surgical
simulators that aid surgical planning and crises management [34-36]. Injury to
the cavernous part of the carotid artery is a challenging scenario for any
surgical team. The high pressure and high risk environment following a
cavernous carotid injury can prove difficult even for the most experienced
neurosurgeons [37]. In the present review, we provide a critical overview of
crisis management simulation for a cavernous carotid injury. Finally, we
discuss other modalities of crises management in neurosurgery practice.