open access

Vol 53, No 1 (2019)
Review articles
Published online: 2019-01-04
Submitted: 2018-11-06
Accepted: 2018-11-06
Get Citation

Neurosurgical cadaveric and in vivo large animal training models for cranial and spinal approaches and techniques — a systematic review of the current literature

Cezar Octavian Morosanu, Liviu Nicolae, Remus Moldovan, Alexandru Stefan Farcasanu, Gabriela Adriana Filip, Ioan Stefan Florian
DOI: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2019.0001
·
Pubmed: 30614516
·
Neurol Neurochir Pol 2019;53(1):8-17.

open access

Vol 53, No 1 (2019)
Review articles
Published online: 2019-01-04
Submitted: 2018-11-06
Accepted: 2018-11-06

Abstract

Introduction. Due to its high complexity, neurosurgery consists of a demanding learning curve that requires intense training and a deep knowledge of neuroanatomy. Microsurgical skill development can be achieved through various models of simulation, but as human cadaveric models are not always accessible, cadaveric animal models can provide a reliable environment in which to enhance the acquisition of surgical dexterity. The aim of this review was to analyse the current role of animal brains in laboratory training and to assess their correspondence to the procedures performed in humans.

Material and methods. A Pubmed literature search was performed to identify all the articles concerning training cranial and spinal techniques on large animal heads. The search terms were ‘training model’, and ‘neurosurgery’ in association with ‘animal’, ‘sheep’, ‘cow’, and ‘swine’. The exclusion criteria were articles that were on human brains, experimental fundamental research, or on virtual simulators.

Results. The search retrieved 119 articles, of which 25 were relevant to the purpose of this review. Owing to their similar neuroanatomy, bovine, porcine and ovine models prove to be reliable structures in simulating neurosurgical procedures. On bovine skulls, an interhemispheric transcalosal and retrosigmoid approach along with different approaches to the Circle of Willis can be recreated. Ovine model procedures have varied from lumbar discectomies on sheep spines to craniosynostosis surgery, whereas in ex vivo swine models, cadaveric dissections of lateral sulcus, median and posterior fossa have been achieved.

Conclusions. Laboratory training models enhance surgical advancements by familiarising trainee surgeons with certain neuroanatomical structures and promoting greater surgical dexterity. The accessibility of animal brains allows trainee surgeons to exercise techniques outside the operating theatre, thus optimising outcomes in human surgical procedures.

Abstract

Introduction. Due to its high complexity, neurosurgery consists of a demanding learning curve that requires intense training and a deep knowledge of neuroanatomy. Microsurgical skill development can be achieved through various models of simulation, but as human cadaveric models are not always accessible, cadaveric animal models can provide a reliable environment in which to enhance the acquisition of surgical dexterity. The aim of this review was to analyse the current role of animal brains in laboratory training and to assess their correspondence to the procedures performed in humans.

Material and methods. A Pubmed literature search was performed to identify all the articles concerning training cranial and spinal techniques on large animal heads. The search terms were ‘training model’, and ‘neurosurgery’ in association with ‘animal’, ‘sheep’, ‘cow’, and ‘swine’. The exclusion criteria were articles that were on human brains, experimental fundamental research, or on virtual simulators.

Results. The search retrieved 119 articles, of which 25 were relevant to the purpose of this review. Owing to their similar neuroanatomy, bovine, porcine and ovine models prove to be reliable structures in simulating neurosurgical procedures. On bovine skulls, an interhemispheric transcalosal and retrosigmoid approach along with different approaches to the Circle of Willis can be recreated. Ovine model procedures have varied from lumbar discectomies on sheep spines to craniosynostosis surgery, whereas in ex vivo swine models, cadaveric dissections of lateral sulcus, median and posterior fossa have been achieved.

Conclusions. Laboratory training models enhance surgical advancements by familiarising trainee surgeons with certain neuroanatomical structures and promoting greater surgical dexterity. The accessibility of animal brains allows trainee surgeons to exercise techniques outside the operating theatre, thus optimising outcomes in human surgical procedures.

Get Citation

Keywords

cadaveric, training, neurosurgical model, large animals

Supplementary Files (3)
Figure 1
View
281KB
Figure 2
View
290KB
Figure 3. Sheep brain
View
127KB
About this article
Title

Neurosurgical cadaveric and in vivo large animal training models for cranial and spinal approaches and techniques — a systematic review of the current literature

Journal

Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska

Issue

Vol 53, No 1 (2019)

Pages

8-17

Published online

2019-01-04

DOI

10.5603/PJNNS.a2019.0001

Pubmed

30614516

Bibliographic record

Neurol Neurochir Pol 2019;53(1):8-17.

Keywords

cadaveric
training
neurosurgical model
large animals

Authors

Cezar Octavian Morosanu
Liviu Nicolae
Remus Moldovan
Alexandru Stefan Farcasanu
Gabriela Adriana Filip
Ioan Stefan Florian

References (64)
  1. Sidhu RS, Park J, Brydges R, et al. Laboratory-based vascular anastomosis training: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of bench model fidelity and level of training on skill acquisition. J Vasc Surg. 2007; 45(2): 343–349.
  2. Haase J, Boisen E. Neurosurgical training: more hours needed or a new learning culture? Surg Neurol. 2009; 72(1): 89–95; discussion 95.
  3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6(7): e1000097.
  4. Sartoretto SC, Uzeda MJ, Miguel FB, et al. SHEEP AS AN EXPERIMENTAL MODEL FOR BIOMATERIAL IMPLANT EVALUATION. Acta Ortop Bras. 2016; 24(5): 262–266.
  5. DiVincenti L, Westcott R, Lee C. Sheep (Ovis aries) as a model for cardiovascular surgery and management before, during, and after cardiopulmonary bypass. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2014; 53(5): 439–448.
  6. Opdam HI, Federico P, Jackson GD, et al. A sheep model for the study of focal epilepsy with concurrent intracranial EEG and functional MRI. Epilepsia. 2002; 43(8): 779–787.
  7. Boltze J, Förschler A, Nitzsche B, et al. Permanent middle cerebral artery occlusion in sheep: a novel large animal model of focal cerebral ischemia. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2008; 28(12): 1951–1964.
  8. Lee W, Lee SD, Park MY, et al. Functional and diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of the sheep brain. BMC Vet Res. 2015; 11: 262.
  9. Hoffmann A, Stoffel MH, Nitzsche B, et al. The ovine cerebral venous system: comparative anatomy, visualization, and implications for translational research. PLoS One. 2014; 9(4): e92990.
  10. Perentos N, Martins AQ, Cumming RJM, et al. An EEG Investigation of Sleep Homeostasis in Healthy and CLN5 Batten Disease Affected Sheep. J Neurosci. 2016; 36(31): 8238–8249.
  11. Grisham W. Resources for teaching Mammalian neuroanatomy using sheep brains: a review. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2006; 5(1): R1–R6.
  12. Hamamcioglu MK, Hicdonmez T, Tiryaki M, et al. A laboratory training model in fresh cadaveric sheep brain for microneurosurgical dissection of cranial nerves in posterior fossa. Br J Neurosurg. 2008; 22(6): 769–771.
  13. Altunrende ME, Hamamcioglu MK, Hıcdonmez T, et al. Microsurgical training model for residents to approach to the orbit and the optic nerve in fresh cadaveric sheep cranium. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2014; 5(2): 151–154.
  14. Hicdonmez T, Parsak T, Cobanoglu S. Simulation of surgery for craniosynostosis: a training model in a fresh cadaveric sheep cranium. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2006; 105(2 Suppl): 150–152.
  15. Coelho G, Warf B, Lyra M, et al. Anatomical pediatric model for craniosynostosis surgical training. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014; 30(12): 2009–2014.
  16. Kamp MA, Knipps J, Steiger HJ, et al. Training for brain tumour resection: a realistic model with easy accessibility. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2015; 157(11): 1975–81; discussion 1981.
  17. Sabel M. Getting Ready for Brain Tumor Surgery Paperback. Thieme 2016: Thieme.
  18. Vavruska J, Buhl R, Petridis AK, et al. Evaluation of an intraoperative ultrasound training model based on a cadaveric sheep brain. Surg Neurol Int. 2014; 5: 46.
  19. Kalayci M, Cagavi F, Gül S, et al. A training model for lumbar discectomy. J Clin Neurosci. 2005; 12(6): 673–675.
  20. Reid JE, Meakin JR, Robins SP, et al. Sheep lumbar intervertebral discs as models for human discs. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002; 17(4): 312–314.
  21. Suslu HT, Tatarli N, Karaaslan A, et al. A practical laboratory study simulating the lumbar microdiscectomy: training model in fresh cadaveric sheep spine. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2014; 75(3): 167–169.
  22. Suslu H. A practical laboratory study simulating the percutaneous lumbar transforaminal epidural injection: training model in fresh cadaveric sheep spine. Turk Neurosurg. 2012; 22(6): 701–705.
  23. Turan Suslu H, Tatarli N, Hicdonmez T, et al. A laboratory training model using fresh sheep spines for pedicular screw fixation. Br J Neurosurg. 2012; 26(2): 252–254.
  24. Smith A, Gagliardi F, Pelzer NR, et al. Rural neurosurgical and spinal laboratory setup. J Spine Surg. 2015; 1(1): 57–64.
  25. Gragnaniello C, Abou-Hamden A, Mortini P, et al. Complex Spine Pathology Simulator: An Innovative Tool for Advanced Spine Surgery Training. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2016; 77(6): 515–522.
  26. Zimmerl U. Il sistema nervoso. In: Bossi V, Caradonna GB, Spampani G. ed. Trattato di Anatomia veterinaria, Vol 3. Vallardi, Milano 1909: 4–294.
  27. Schmidt MJ, Langen N, Klumpp S, et al. A study of the comparative anatomy of the brain of domestic ruminants using magnetic resonance imaging. Vet J. 2012; 191(1): 85–93.
  28. Schmidt MJ, Pilatus U, Wigger A, et al. Neuroanatomy of the calf brain as revealed by high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. J Morphol. 2009; 270(6): 745–758.
  29. Ballarin C, Povinelli M, Granato A, et al. The Brain of the Domestic Bos taurus: Weight, Encephalization and Cerebellar Quotients, and Comparison with Other Domestic and Wild Cetartiodactyla. PLoS One. 2016; 11(4): e0154580.
  30. Zdun M, Frąckowiak H, Kiełtyka-Kurc A, et al. The arteries of brain base in species of Bovini tribe. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2013; 296(11): 1677–1682.
  31. Hicdonmez T, Hamamcioglu MK, Parsak T, et al. A laboratory training model for interhemispheric-transcallosal approach to the lateral ventricle. Neurosurg Rev. 2006; 29(2): 159–162.
  32. Hicdonmez T, Hamamcioglu MK, Tiryaki M, et al. Microneurosurgical training model in fresh cadaveric cow brain: a laboratory study simulating the approach to the circle of Willis. Surg Neurol. 2006; 66(1): 100–4; discussion 104.
  33. Turan Suslu H, Ceylan D, Tatarlı N, et al. Laboratory training in the retrosigmoid approach using cadaveric silicone injected cow brain. Br J Neurosurg. 2013; 27(6): 812–814.
  34. Gökyar A, Cokluk C. Using of Fresh Cadaveric Cow Brain in the Microsurgical Training Model for Sulcal-Cisternal and Fissural Dissection. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2018; 9(1): 26–29.
  35. Anderson PA. Surgical simulation: Dural repair. http://www.cns.org/publications/cnsq/pdf/CNSQ_11summer.pdf (2014 Sep 08).
  36. Walker JB, Perkins E, Harkey HL. A novel simulation model for minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2009; 65(6 Suppl): 188–195.
  37. La Torre M, Caruso C. The animal model in advanced laparoscopy resident training. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013; 23(3): 271–275.
  38. He B, Musk GC, Mou L. Laparoscopic surgery for orthotopic kidney transplant in the pig model. J Surg Res. 2013; 184(2): 1096–1101.
  39. Mardas N, Dereka X, Donos N, et al. Experimental model for bone regeneration in oral and cranio-maxillo-facial surgery. J Invest Surg. 2014; 27(1): 32–49.
  40. Esposito C, Escolino M, Draghici I, et al. Training Models in Pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery: Rabbit Model Versus Porcine Model: A Comparative Study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016; 26(1): 79–84.
  41. Zou C, Wang JQ, Guo X, et al. Pig eyelid as a teaching model for severe ptosis repair. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012; 28(6): 472–474.
  42. Stefanidis D, Yonce TC, Green JM, et al. Cadavers versus pigs: which are better for procedural training of surgery residents outside the OR? Surgery. 2013; 154(1): 34–37.
  43. Sauleau P, Lapouble E, Val-Laillet D, et al. The pig model in brain imaging and neurosurgery. Animal. 2009; 3(8): 1138–1151.
  44. Conrad MS, Dilger RN, Johnson RW. Brain growth of the domestic pig (Sus scrofa) from 2 to 24 weeks of age: a longitudinal MRI study. Dev Neurosci. 2012; 34(4): 291–298.
  45. Conrad MS, Sutton BP, Dilger RN, et al. An in vivo three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging-based averaged brain collection of the neonatal piglet (Sus scrofa). PLoS One. 2014; 9(9): e107650.
  46. Gorny KR, Presti MF, Goerss SJ, et al. Measurements of RF heating during 3.0-T MRI of a pig implanted with deep brain stimulator. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 31(5): 783–788.
  47. Habib CA, Utriainen D, Peduzzi-Nelson J, et al. MR imaging of the yucatan pig head and neck vasculature. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 38(3): 641–649.
  48. Aurich LA, Silva Junior LF, Monteiro FM, et al. Microsurgical training model with nonliving swine head. Alternative for neurosurgical education. Acta Cir Bras. 2014; 29(6): 405–409.
  49. Silva L, Aurich L, Monteiro F, et al. Microsurgical and Endoscopic Training Model with Nonliving Swine Head: New Alternative for Skull Base Education. Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base. 2014; 75(S 01).
  50. Hanrahan J, Sideris M, Pasha T, et al. Hands train the brain-what is the role of hand tremor and anxiety in undergraduate microsurgical skills? Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018; 160(9): 1673–1679.
  51. Hanrahan J, Sideris M, Tsitsopoulos P, et al. Increasing motivation and engagement in neurosurgery for medical students through practical simulation-based learning. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2018; 34: 75–79.
  52. Regelsberger J, Eicker S, Siasios I, et al. In vivo porcine training model for cranial neurosurgery. Neurosurg Rev. 2015; 38(1): 157–63; discussion 163.
  53. Olabe J, Olabe J, Roda J. Microsurgical cerebral aneurysm training porcine model. Neurol India. 2011; 59(1): 78–81.
  54. Borucki Ł, Szyfter W. [Evaluation of an animal model in endoscopic surgery of the cerebello-pontine angle]. Otolaryngol Pol. 2003; 57(3): 385–388.
  55. Cuéllar G, Rugeles J. ENDOSCOPIC INTERLAMINAR DISCECTOMY. USE OF SWINE CADAVERS AS A TRAINING MODEL. Coluna/Columna. 2017; 16(2): 116–120.
  56. Meléndez García JM, Araujo Da Costa AS, Rivera Schmitz T, et al. Temporal bone dissection practice using a chicken egg. Otol Neurotol. 2014; 35(6): 941–943.
  57. Mowry SE, Jammal H, Myer C, et al. A Novel Temporal Bone Simulation Model Using 3D Printing Techniques. Otol Neurotol. 2015; 36(9): 1562–1565.
  58. Garcia L, Andrade J, Testa J. Anatomical study of the pigs temporal bone by microdissection. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira. 2014; 29(suppl 3): 77–80.
  59. Gurr A, Stark T, Probst G, et al. [The temporal bone of lamb and pig as an alternative in ENT-education]. Laryngorhinootologie. 2010; 89(1): 17–24.
  60. Bergin M. Systematic review of animal models of middle ear surgery. World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. 2013; 3(3): 71.
  61. Wiet GJ, Sørensen MS, Andersen SA. Otologic Skills Training. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2017; 50(5): 933–945.
  62. Pham M, Kale A, Marquez Y, et al. A Perfusion-based Human Cadaveric Model for Management of Carotid Artery Injury during Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2014; 75(5): 309–313.
  63. Aboud E, Aboud G, Al-Mefty O, et al. “Live cadavers” for training in the management of intraoperative aneurysmal rupture. Journal of Neurosurgery. 2015; 123(5): 1339–1346.
  64. Kshettry VR, Mullin JP, Schlenk R, et al. The role of laboratory dissection training in neurosurgical residency: results of a national survey. World Neurosurg. 2014; 82(5): 554–559.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl