ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
Toward an optimal cadaveric brain model for neurosurgical education: assessment of preservation, parenchyma, vascular injection, and imaging.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Brain extraction for fixed tissue banking: a technical report.Free neuropathology · 2026Article
- DrSVision: A Machine Learning Tool for Cortical Region-Specific fNIRS Calibration Based on Cadaveric Head MRI.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Long-Term Preservation of Human Head and Neck Specimens for Neurosurgical Training: A Technical Note.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Mechanical perfusion in brain banking: methods of assessment and relationship to the postmortem interval.Free neuropathology · 2025Article
- Detection of hand motion during cadaveric mastoidectomy dissections: a technical note.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Ultrahigh-resolution 7-Tesla anatomic magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging ofFrontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe assessed types of cadaveric head and brain tissue specimen preparations that are used in a high throughput neurosurgical research laboratory to determine optimal preparation methods for neurosurgical anatomical research, education, and training.
methodsCadaveric specimens (N = 112) prepared using different preservation and vascular injection methods were imaged, dissected, and graded by 11 neurosurgeons using a 21-point scale. We assessed the quality of tissue and preservation in both the anterior and posterior circulations. Tissue quality was evaluated using a 9-point magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scale.
resultsFormalin-fixed specimens yielded the highest scores for assessment (mean ± SD [17.0 ± 2.8]) vs. formalin-flushed (17.0 ± 3.6) and MRI (6.9 ± 2.0). Cadaver assessment and MRI scores were positively correlated (P < 0.001, R
conclusionFor better-quality specimens for neurosurgical education and training, formalin preservation within ≤72 h of death was preferable, as was injection with colored latex. Formalin-flushed specimens more closely resembled live brain parenchyma. Assessment scores were lower for preparation techniques performed > 72 h postmortem and for nonformalin preservation solutions. The positive correlation between cadaver assessment scores and our novel MRI score indicates that donation organizations and institutional buyers should incorporate MRI as a screening tool for the selection of high-quality specimens.
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.