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.
Cadaver Spine surgery Cadaveric training Surgical techniques Minimally invasive surgery Learning curve Pedicle screws Complications Endoscopic surgery
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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
Mody MG, Nourbakhsh A, Stahl DL, Gibbs M, Alfawareh M, Garges KJ. The prevalence of wrong level surgery among spine surgeons. Spine. 2008;33:194–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis F. The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine. 1983;8:817–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sclafani JA, Kim CW. Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1711–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalvo A, Fitt G, Liew S, de la Harpe D, Turner P, Ton L, Rogers MA, Wilde PH. The learning curve of pedicle screw placement: how many screws are enough? Spine. 2009;34:E761–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kshettry VR, Mullin JP, Schlenk R, Recinos PF, Benzel EC. The role of laboratory dissection training in neurosurgical residency: results of a national survey. World Neurosurg. 2014;82:554–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nwachukwu C, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Evaluating dissection in the gross anatomy course: correlation between quality of laboratory dissection and students’ outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrop J, Lobel DA, Bendok B, Sharan A, Rezai AR. Developing a neurosurgical simulation-based educational curriculum: an overview. Neurosurgery. 2013;73(Suppl 1):25–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith A, Gagliardi F, Pelzer NR, Hampton J, Chau AM, Stewart F, Mortini P, Gragnaniello C. Rural neurosurgical and spinal laboratory setup. J Spine Surg. 2015;1:57–64.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
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.
Tomlinson JE, Yiasemidou M, Watts AL, Roberts DJ, Timothy J. Cadaveric spinal surgery simulation: a comparison of cadaver types. Global Spine J. 2016;6:357–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelho G, Warf B, Lyra M, Zanon N. Anatomical pediatric model for craniosynostosis surgical training. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30:2009–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benneker LM, Gisep A, Krebs J, Boger A, Heini PF, Boner V. Development of an in vivo experimental model for percutaneous vertebroplasty in sheep. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2012;25:173–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gragnaniello C, Abou-Hamden A, Mortini P, Colombo EV, Bailo M, Seex KA, Litvack Z, Caputy AJ, Gagliardi F. Complex spine pathology simulator: an innovative tool for advanced spine surgery training. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2016;77:515–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suslu H. A practical laboratory study simulating the percutaneous lumbar transforaminal epidural injection: training model in fresh cadaveric sheep spine. Turk Neurosurg. 2012;22:701–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Turan Suslu H, Tatarli N, Hicdonmez T, Borekci A. A laboratory training model using fresh sheep spines for pedicular screw fixation. Br J Neurosurg. 2012;26:252–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.
Kamel I, Barnette R. Positioning patients for spine surgery: avoiding uncommon position-related complications. World J Orthop. 2014;5:425–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stambough JL, Dolan D, Werner R, Godfrey E. Ophthalmologic complications associated with prone positioning in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:156–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePasse JM, Palumbo MA, Haque M, Eberson CP, Daniels AH. Complications associated with prone positioning in elective spinal surgery. World J Orthop. 2015;6:351–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers SB, Deehan DJ. Cadaveric surgical training improves surgeon confidence. The Bulletin of the RCS. 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull IM, Brieg A, Hassler O. Blood supply of cervical spinal cord in man: a microangiographic cadaver study. J Neurosurg. 1966;24:951–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breig A, Turnbull I, Hassler O. Effects of mechanical stresses on the spinal cord in cervical spondylosis: a study on fresh cadaver material. J Neurosurg. 1966;25:45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrop JS, Aarabi B, Shaffrey C, Dvorak M, Fisher C. Early versus delayed decompression for traumatic cervical spinal cord injury: results of the Surgical Timing in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (STASCIS). PLoS One. 2012;7:e32037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebraheim NA, Jabaly G, Xu R, Yeasting RA. Anatomic relations of the thoracic pedicle to the adjacent neural structures. Spine. 1997;22:1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gautschi OP, Schatlo B, Schaller K, Tessitore E. Clinically relevant complications related to pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery and their management: a literature review of 35,630 pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus. 2011;31:E8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.
Shriver MF, Zeer V, Alentado VJ, Mroz TE, Benzel EC, Steinmetz MP. Lumbar spine surgery positioning complications: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39:E16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein CL, Phillips FM, Rampersaud YR. Comparative effectiveness and economic evaluations of open versus minimally invasive posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Spine. 2016;41(Suppl 8):S74–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Sandhu FA, Santiago P, Spears JD, Aaronson O, Kelly K, Hrubes M, Fessler RG. Thoracic microendoscopic discectomy: a human cadaver study. Spine. 2005;30:1226–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu J, Napolitano JT, Ebraheim NA. Systematic review of cervical pedicle dimensions and projections. Spine. 2010;35:E1373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Ludwig SC, Kramer DL, Balderston RA, Vaccaro AR, Foley KF, Albert TJ. Placement of pedicle screws in the human cadaveric cervical spine: comparative accuracy of three techniques. Spine. 2000;25:1655–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.
Du Jerry Y, Aichmair A, Kueper J, Label TWDR. Biomechanical analysis of screw constructs for atlantoaxial fixation in cadavers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(2):151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu J, Hao L, Suyou L, Shan Z, Maiwulanjiang M. Biomechanical properties of lumbar endplates and their correlation with MRI findings of lumbar degeneration. J Biomech. 2016;49:586–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar