Switching swine for simulators: At what cost?

Roger Collier

doi:10.1503/cmaj.081400

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

References

Author Information

Contributors

First Name and Middle Initial *

First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.

Last Name *

Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.

Degrees

Email Address *

Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com

Occupation *

Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.

Affiliation *

Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.

Address

Your organization, institution's or residential address.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

Sarah Keating, M.D.

Posted on: 20 October 2008
Response to: Switching Swine for Simulators.
Daran W. Haber

Posted on: 20 October 2008

Posted on: (20 October 2008)
Page navigation anchor for
Sarah Keating, M.D.
To the Editor: CMAJ recently published an article on the putative educational and economic costs of replacing live animals used in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) training with human patient simulators.1 Replacing live animals with high-tech simulators does not compromise the quality of the courses but instead creates a safe learning environment and provides a realistic representation of human anatomy. Seven years ago, t...
Show More

To the Editor: CMAJ recently published an article on the putative educational and economic costs of replacing live animals used in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) training with human patient simulators.1 Replacing live animals with high-tech simulators does not compromise the quality of the courses but instead creates a safe learning environment and provides a realistic representation of human anatomy. Seven years ago, the American College of Surgeons, which oversees ATLS courses, approved the use of simulators for all procedures taught in the courses. A recent review paper by that organization details its initiatives in changing the focus in surgery skills training from the use of animals to the use of simulation.2 Today, the vast majority of ATLS courses use only nonanimal training tools. The few trauma training programs that still use live animals are continuing an outdated tradition. Nonanimal alternatives are now widely available and are also affordable. They can be leased for various lengths of time to fit the needs of individual courses, with costs as low as $100 to $150 per student--similar to the cost of using live animals. Switching to simulators does not create a financial burden for institutions offering ATLS courses. Teaching methods and technology are constantly evolving and improving, and it is time for the few ATLS courses that still use live animals to join the 21st century and make the switch to simulators. Sincerely, Sarah Keating, M.D. REFERENCES 1. Collier R. Switching swine for simulators: At what cost? CMAJ 2008;179(8): 759-60. 2. Sachdeva AK, Pellegrini CA, Johnson KA. Support for Simulation-based Surgical Education through American College of Surgeons–Accredited Education Institutes. World J Surg 2008;32:196–207.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.
Posted on: (20 October 2008)
Page navigation anchor for Response to: Switching Swine for Simulators.
Response to: Switching Swine for Simulators.
Daran W. Haber
To the Editor:
The shift toward using human patient simulators in place of live animals in trauma training was recently discussed in CMAJ.1 As a former participant in an Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course and instructor for Advanced Cardiac Life Support, I strongly support using simulators in trauma training courses to ensure participants have an accurate understanding of human anatomy.
Signif...
Show More

To the Editor:
The shift toward using human patient simulators in place of live animals in trauma training was recently discussed in CMAJ.1 As a former participant in an Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course and instructor for Advanced Cardiac Life Support, I strongly support using simulators in trauma training courses to ensure participants have an accurate understanding of human anatomy.
Significant differences exist between a human’s anatomy and a pig’s anatomy. The tracheas--important because airway management is a crucial part of ATLS courses--are very different, the required incision pressure is different, and in many other ways the physiology of a pig is irrelevant to medical personnel trying to save human lives.
With cutting-edge human patient simulators, there is no translation required from animal anatomy to human anatomy. Simulators are affordable, readily available, and have been approved by the American College of Surgeons. TraumaMan is an anatomical human body mannequin designed specifically for students to practice the advanced surgical procedures taught in the ATLS course. In a 2002 study, ATLS course participants found TraumaMan to be superior to animal models for learning many skills and procedures.
It is crucial that ATLS course participants are trained with the best tools and methods available, and this means replacing live animal labs with high-tech human patient simulators. This advancement will allow medical professionals to hone their emergency trauma skills without sacrificing animals’ lives.
Sincerely,
Daran Haber, M.D. Riverview Medical Center 1 Riverview Plaza Red Bank, NJ 07701 (877) 767-8910 daran.haber@hotmail.com
REFERENCES 1. Collier R. Switching swine for simulators: At what cost? CMAJ 2008; 179(8): 759-60. 2. Block EF, Lottenberg L, Flint L, Jakobsen J, Liebnitzky D. Use of a human patient simulator for the advanced trauma life support course. Am. Surg 2002 Jul; 68(7):
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.