ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2022
Minimally invasive swine spine surgery training: technical aspects, benefits, and anatomical limitations.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation training in spinal endoscopic surgery: a systematic review of current status.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Improving the learning curve in monoportal endoscopic lumbar surgery: Development and validation of a porcine training model.PloS one · 2026Article
- Emerging Technologies within Spine Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Feasibility of High-Fidelity Simulator Models for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in a Resource-Limited Setting: Experience From East Africa.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the technical specificities and feasibility of simulation of minimally invasive spine surgery in live pigs, as well as similarities and differences in comparison to surgery in humans.
methodsA total of 22 Large White class swine models, weighing between 60 and 80kg, were submitted to surgical simulations, performed during theoretical-practical courses for training surgical techniques (microsurgical and endoscopic lumbar decompression; percutaneous pedicular instrumentation; lateral access to the thoracic spine, and anterior and retroperitoneal to the lumbar spine, and management of complications) by 86 spine surgeons. For each surgical technique, porcine anatomy (similarities and differences in relation to human anatomy), access route, and dimensions of the instruments and implants used were evaluated. Thus, the authors describe the feasibility of each operative simulation, as well as suggestions to optimize training. Study results are descriptive, with figures and drawings.
resultsNeural decompression surgeries (microsurgeries and endoscopic) and pedicular instrumentation presented higher similarities to surgery on humans. On the other hand, intradiscal procedures had limitations due to the narrow disc space in swines. We were able to simulate situations of surgical trauma in surgical complication scenarios, such as cerebrospinal fluid fistulas and excessive bleeding, with comparable realism to surgery on humans.
conclusionA porcine model for simulation of minimally invasive spinal surgical techniques had similarities with surgery on humans, and is therefore feasible for surgeon training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.