Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Cadaveric Models in Simulation Training in Spinal Procedures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Neurosurgery

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation ((CHS))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Spinal disorders: fundamentals of diagnosis and treatment. Am J Neuroradiol. 2009.; https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a1299.

  4. Denis F. The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine. 1983;8:817–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones R. Leonardo da Vinci: anatomist. Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62:319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Coelho G, Warf B, Lyra M, Zanon N. Anatomical pediatric model for craniosynostosis surgical training. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30:2009–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kamel I, Barnette R. Positioning patients for spine surgery: avoiding uncommon position-related complications. World J Orthop. 2014;5:425–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chambers SB, Deehan DJ. Cadaveric surgical training improves surgeon confidence. The Bulletin of the RCS. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Turnbull IM, Brieg A, Hassler O. Blood supply of cervical spinal cord in man: a microangiographic cadaver study. J Neurosurg. 1966;24:951–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ebraheim NA, Jabaly G, Xu R, Yeasting RA. Anatomic relations of the thoracic pedicle to the adjacent neural structures. Spine. 1997;22:1553.

    Article  CAS  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shriver MF, Xie JJ, Tye EY, Rosenbaum BP, Kshettry VR, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Lumbar microdiscectomy complication rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39:E6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Liu J, Napolitano JT, Ebraheim NA. Systematic review of cervical pedicle dimensions and projections. Spine. 2010;35:E1373–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 

  40. 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.

    Article  CAS  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Theodosios Stamatopoulos

  2. CORE-Center for Orthopedic Research at CIRI-AUTh, Aristotle University Medical School, Thessaloniki, Hellas, USA

    Theodosios Stamatopoulos

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Vijay Yanamadala & John H. Shin

Authors
  1. Theodosios Stamatopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vijay Yanamadala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John H. Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, Chicago, IL, USA

    Ali Alaraj

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stamatopoulos, T., Yanamadala, V., Shin, J.H. (2018). Use of Cadaveric Models in Simulation Training in Spinal Procedures. In: Alaraj, A. (eds) Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Neurosurgery. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75583-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75583-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75582-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75583-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation