Department of Learning, Informatics, Management & Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Academic Department of Military Surgery & Trauma, Royal Centre of Defence Medicine (RCDM), Birmingham, UK.
HQ Army Medical Services Support Unit, Camberley, UK.
J Surg Educ. 2024 Dec;81(12):103295. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.09.014. Epub 2024 Oct 7.
Live tissue training (LTT), use of a living anaesthetized animal to practice surgical skills, is a continuing practice, despite controversy and ethical concern. The scientific literature appears polarized in terms of supporting or refuting the practice. This bibliometric analysis of the literature maps and explores the academic conversation regarding LTT including potential influences associated with authorship.
Literature identified via the process conducted during a previously published systematic review was used for analysis. 84 literature sources were included. Bibliometric data were manually extracted for analysis, and visually mapped.
The scientific conversation about LTT use in trauma is centered on surgery, trauma and emergency medicine specialties, published in clinical journals, with significant influence noted from military authors and organizations. Few authors published work in simulation or education-based journals. Publications are considered to be generally supportive of, or ambivalent to, the use of LTT; those with notable objections to LTT tended to be affiliated to animal activist organizations.
There is academic conversation apparent within the literature, in the form of citations, although this is used to affirm or rebuke a given perspective, rather than engage with, or learn from, the content. There is potential benefit to increased interactivity between researchers. The conversation could also be informed by authors broadening the outlook to wider medical educational literature and other disciplines, rather than focusing on application to clinical training, to improve trauma education for all, regardless of modality.
活体组织训练（LTT），即使用活体麻醉动物来练习手术技能，是一种持续存在的实践，尽管存在争议和伦理问题。科学文献在支持或反对这种做法方面似乎存在两极分化。本文对文献进行了计量分析，探讨了与 LTT 相关的学术讨论，包括与作者身份相关的潜在影响。
使用先前发表的系统评价过程中确定的文献进行分析。共纳入 84 篇文献。手动提取文献计量数据进行分析，并进行可视化映射。
关于 LTT 在创伤中的应用的科学讨论集中在外科、创伤和急诊医学专业，发表在临床期刊上，军事作者和组织的影响力显著。很少有作者在模拟或教育类期刊上发表相关工作。出版物普遍支持或对 LTT 持中立态度；那些对 LTT 有明显反对意见的人往往与动物活动组织有关联。
文献中存在学术讨论，表现为引用，尽管这是用来肯定或反驳某个观点，而不是参与或从内容中学习。研究人员之间增加互动可能会带来好处。这种讨论也可以通过作者拓宽视野，关注更广泛的医学教育文献和其他学科，而不仅仅是将其应用于临床培训，以改善所有人的创伤教育，而不论模式如何。
