Very weird-looking synthetic dog for surgical training


#1

[Read the post]


#2

“Heeeeeere Scamp!”


#3

It looks like someone took all the skin off Falkor.


#4

And it has no skin/fur… why? Just to be extra creepy I guess?


#5

"It bleeds, it breathes, it can even die,”

It thinks, it dreams. It knows fear, it feels pain. It yearns for death’s release.


#6

#OH NO!!!
@Falcor we hope you pull through! :sunflower:


#7

That is some high grade nightmare fuel right there.

Unicorn chaser:


#8

If your interest is in the underlying structures, why have skin in the first place? Seems like it’s a better learning aid with more internal visibility.


#9

Rumors of my injury are greatly exaggerated.


#10

It may be creepy, but it beats vivisection.


#11

Because if you’re actually attempting surgery, that skin is another tissue layer that has to be manipulated.


#12

Expression seems to say “Oh, God, not my balls again!”


#13

That makes sense as a full simulation, but I would think there is something to be gained by seeing how all of the subcutaneous layers and organs are functioning as you operate.


#14

This would make for great replacements for anatomy specimens (when you’re just learning to identify structures), but would be a poor replacement for live tissue when learning surgery.

When I went to veterinary school, our surgical program was conducted with animals from the local shelter that were slated to be euthanized. They’d be anesthetized, surgical procedures would be learned, and then they’d be euthanized (while under anesthesia) while on the surgical table. Pretty brutal, but an indispensable aid to learning how to manipulate tissues/how live tissues react (especially when you have to focus on hemostasis for the first time ever). One other option was to use animals from the shelter that had already been euthanized. They’d be hauled out of the fridge earlier in the day, and allowed to warm to room temperature. Surgery on “real” tissue, without having to feel like you were personally responsible for the death of a particular animal. To a single individual, each of my classmates that did this option regretted having done it. Their animal still died, and they missed out on vital lessons that can only be gained from manipulation of real live tissue.

Until all the shelters are “no kill” and there are no animals being euthanized, or synthetic materials become indistinguishable from real tissue, then this is just an expensive “feel good” project. This is just one of those situations in which there’s just not an adequate replacement for the real thing (not yet at least, and I look forward to the day when there is!).


#15

Oh yeah, I’m not discounting this at all as a “practice” sort of simulacrum, but learning proper tissue manipulation really does require the real thing (skin and all). It’s kind of hard to describe, but each tissue, even the same type of tissue in different locations, can have different thickness and resistance to tearing. In the example of skin, just imagine the difference in trying to put sutures through skin in a very thin area vs a very thick area.


#16

I’d be interested in seeing what they do for the tissue portion. I imagine it would not be so easy to replace over and over on a synthetic model and that they probably do still practice on real tissue.

My assumption was this type of model would cut down on the number of animals that are used in medical training. (I’m old enough we did dissections in high school, and was with a program where I was able to get some hands on experience with human cadavers when I was 12.)


#17

We used something similar to learn venipuncture, and there were little replaceable modules within a larger superstructure. I’d assume the same thing for these. Can’t be cheap though.


#18


#19

I’m all right with reducing the amount of animal cruelty in the world. Guess that’s why you called it a “feel good” project.


#20