Use of Cadaveric Models in Simulation Training in Spinal Procedures
Traditionally, surgical skills are meant to be acquired through years of experience in the operating room (OR) on live patients. This chapter introduces the use of cadaveric models in spine surgery, how such laboratories are organized worldwide. Spine surgery is associated with increased morbidity due to the complexity of these surgical procedures, so the increasing need for improvement of postoperative results forces the physicians on enchasing the effectiveness of their surgical standards. Spine surgery’s high exacting nature is common ground due to the complex anatomy as well as the dangers surgeons can face intra- and postoperatively. Cadaveric training programs offer the infrastructure and the personnel to face this need through a combination of theoretical and practical training through up-to-date teaching, make a truly very meaningful advance to improve patient care, and improve the quality of spine surgery. Included in this chapter are the advantages and disadvantages of cadaveric spine surgery, as well as the methods through which spine surgeons are introduced to recognize the anatomical landmarks of each part of the spine and learn how to perform certain surgical procedures of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Additionally, the new role of minimally invasive surgery is being presented and how training using cadavers can potentially expand our therapeutic options. Despite some limitations in this type of training, cadaver-based surgical skill learning courses are worldwide recognized as the gold standard in surgical training. New doctors, as well as medical professionals, are encouraged to practice spine surgery on cadaveric models, which gives them the best way to effectively improve their skills and make significant progress in achieving their treatment goals effectively.
KeywordsCadaver Spine surgery Cadaveric training Surgical techniques Minimally invasive surgery Learning curve Pedicle screws Complications Endoscopic surgery
- 1.Perez-Cruet MJ, Balabhadra RSV, Samartzis D, Kim DH. Historical background of minimally invasive spine surgery. In: Kim DH, Fessler RG, Regan JJ, editors. Endoscopic spine surgery and instrumentation. New York: Thime; 2004. p. 3–18. Attaching top medical students to a career in Neurosurgery.Google Scholar
- 3.Spinal disorders: fundamentals of diagnosis and treatment. Am J Neuroradiol. 2009.; https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a1299.
- 12.Hayashi S, Naito M, Kawata S, Qu N. History and future of human cadaver preservation for surgical training: from formalin to saturated salt solution method. Anat Sci Int. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-015-0299-5.
- 19.Berjano P, Villafañe JH, Vanacker G, Cecchinato R, Ismael M, Gunzburg R, Marruzzo D, Lamartina C. The effect of case-based discussion of topics with experts on learners’ opinions: implications for spinal education and training. Eur Spine J. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4860-2.
- 23.Chambers SB, Deehan DJ. Cadaveric surgical training improves surgeon confidence. The Bulletin of the RCS. 2015.Google Scholar
- 28.Kessler J, Moriggl B, Grau T. The use of ultrasound improves the accuracy of epidural needle placement in cadavers. Surg Radiol Anat. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-013-1243-9.
- 29.Bergeson RK, Schwend RM, DeLucia T, Silva SR. How accurately do novice surgeons place thoracic pedicle screws with the free hand technique? Spine. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817b61a.
- 30.Oh CH, Yoon SH, Kim YJ, Hyun D, Park H-CC. Technical report of free hand pedicle screw placement using the entry points with junction of proximal edge of transverse process and lamina in lumbar spine: analysis of 2601 consecutive screws. Korean J Spine. 2013;10:7–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Lonner BS, Auerbach JD, Estreicher MB, Kean KE. Thoracic pedicle screw instrumentation: the learning curve and evolution in technique in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b4f7e8.
- 36.Abuzayed B, Tuna Y, Gazioglu N. Thoracoscopic anatomy and approaches of the anterior thoracic spine: cadaver study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-012-0949-4.
- 39.Srikantha U, Khanapure KS, Jagannatha AT, Joshi KC, Varma RG, Hegde AS. Minimally invasive atlantoaxial fusion: cadaveric study and report of 5 clinical cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016:1–6.Google Scholar
- 41.Dixon D, Darden B, Casamitjana J, Weissmann KA, Cristobal S, Powell D, Baluch D. Accuracy of a dynamic surgical guidance probe for screw insertion in the cervical spine: a cadaveric study. Eur Spine J. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4840-6.
- 43.Majid K, Moldavsky M, Khalil S, Gudipally M. An in-vitro biomechanical study evaluating cervical extension plates for stabilizing degenerated adjacent levels. Clin Spine Surg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a26734.
- 44.Reis MT, Reyes PM, Crawford NR. Biomechanical assessment of anchored cervical interbody cages: comparison of 2-screw and 4-screw designs. Neurosurgery. 2014;10(Suppl 3):412–7; discussion 417.Google Scholar