Skip to main content
Journal cover image

A comparison of a homemade central line simulator to commercial models.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Brown, RF; Tignanelli, C; Grudziak, J; Summerlin-Long, S; Laux, J; Kiser, A; Montgomery, SP
Published in: J Surg Res
June 15, 2017

BACKGROUND: Simulation is quickly becoming vital to resident education, but commercially available central line models are costly and little information exists to evaluate their realism. This study compared an inexpensive homemade simulator to three commercially available simulators and rated model characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen physicians, all having placed >50 lines in their lifetime, completed blinded central line insertions on three commercial and one homemade model (made of silicone, tubing, and a pressurized pump system). Participants rated each model on the realism of its ultrasound image, cannulation feel, manometry, and overall. They then ranked the models based on the same variables. Rankings were assessed with Friedman's and post hoc Conover's tests, using alphas 0.05 and 0.008 (Bonferroni corrected), respectively. RESULTS: The models significantly differed (P < 0.0004) in rankings across all dimensions. The homemade model was ranked best on ultrasound image, manometry measurement, cannulation feel, and overall quality by 71%, 67%, 53%, and 77% of raters, respectively. It was found to be statistically superior to the second rated model in all (P < 0.003) except cannulation feel (P = 0.134). Ultrasound image and manometry measurement received the lowest ratings across all models, indicating less realistic simulation. The cost of the homemade model was $400 compared to $1000-$8000 for commercial models. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that an inexpensive, homemade central line model is as good or better than commercially available models. Areas for potential improvement within models include the ultrasound image and ability to appropriately measure manometry of accessed vessels.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

J Surg Res

DOI

EISSN

1095-8673

Publication Date

June 15, 2017

Volume

214

Start / End Page

203 / 208

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • United States
  • Ultrasonography, Interventional
  • Surgery
  • Single-Blind Method
  • Simulation Training
  • Models, Anatomic
  • Internship and Residency
  • Humans
  • Catheterization, Central Venous
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Brown, R. F., Tignanelli, C., Grudziak, J., Summerlin-Long, S., Laux, J., Kiser, A., & Montgomery, S. P. (2017). A comparison of a homemade central line simulator to commercial models. J Surg Res, 214, 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.02.071
Brown, Rebecca F., Christopher Tignanelli, Joanna Grudziak, Shelley Summerlin-Long, Jeffrey Laux, Andy Kiser, and Sean P. Montgomery. “A comparison of a homemade central line simulator to commercial models.J Surg Res 214 (June 15, 2017): 203–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.02.071.
Brown RF, Tignanelli C, Grudziak J, Summerlin-Long S, Laux J, Kiser A, et al. A comparison of a homemade central line simulator to commercial models. J Surg Res. 2017 Jun 15;214:203–8.
Brown, Rebecca F., et al. “A comparison of a homemade central line simulator to commercial models.J Surg Res, vol. 214, June 2017, pp. 203–08. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.jss.2017.02.071.
Brown RF, Tignanelli C, Grudziak J, Summerlin-Long S, Laux J, Kiser A, Montgomery SP. A comparison of a homemade central line simulator to commercial models. J Surg Res. 2017 Jun 15;214:203–208.
Journal cover image

Published In

J Surg Res

DOI

EISSN

1095-8673

Publication Date

June 15, 2017

Volume

214

Start / End Page

203 / 208

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • United States
  • Ultrasonography, Interventional
  • Surgery
  • Single-Blind Method
  • Simulation Training
  • Models, Anatomic
  • Internship and Residency
  • Humans
  • Catheterization, Central Venous
  • 3202 Clinical sciences