The Barrow Biomimetic Spine: Face, Content, and Construct Validity of a 3D-Printed Spine Model for Freehand and Minimally Invasive Pedicle Screw Insertion

Overview

Journal Global Spine J

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2019 Aug 27

PMID 31448198

Citations 5

Authors

Michael A Bohl

Rohit Mauria

James J Zhou

Michael A Mooney

Joseph D DiDomenico

Sarah McBryan

Claudio Cavallo

Peter Nakaji

Steve W Chang

Juan S Uribe

Jay D Turner

U Kumar Kakarla

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Study Design: Description and evaluation of a novel surgical training platform.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the face, content, and construct validity of 5 novel surgical training models that simulate freehand and percutaneous (minimally invasive surgery [MIS]) pedicle screw placement.

Methods: Five spine models were developed by residents: 3 for freehand pedicle screw training (models A-C) and 2 for MIS pedicle screw training (models D and E). Attending spine surgeons evaluated each model and, using a 20-point Likert-type scale, answered survey questions on model face, content, and construct validity. Scores were statistically evaluated and compared using means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance between models and between surgeons.

Results: Among the freehand models, model C demonstrated the highest overall validity, with mean face (15.67 ± 5.49), content (19.17 ± 0.59), and construct (18.83 ± 0.24) validity all measuring higher than the other freehand models. For the MIS models, model D had the highest validity scores (face, content, and construct validity of 11.67 ± 3.77, 18.17 ± 2.04, and 17.00 ± 3.46, respectively). The 3 freehand models differed significantly in content validity scores ( = .002) as did the 2 MIS models ( < .001). The testing surgeons' overall validity scores were significantly different for models A ( = .005) and E ( < .001).

Conclusions: A 3-dimensional-printed spine model with incorporated bone bleeding and silicone rubber soft tissue was scored as having very high content and construct validity for simulating freehand pedicle screw insertion. These data has informed the further development of several surgical training models that hold great potential as educational adjuncts in surgical training programs.

Citing Articles

Design and 3D printing of pelvis phantoms for cementoplasty.

Sieffert C, Meylheuc L, Bayle B, Garnon J Med Phys. 2024; 52(3):1454-1467.

PMID: 39688399 PMC: 11880649. DOI: 10.1002/mp.17560.

Utility of 3-dimensionally printed models for parent education in pediatric plagiocephaly.

Entezami P, Spurgas M, OBrien M, Newman L, Adamo M PEC Innov. 2023; 1:100077.

PMID: 37213734 PMC: 10194339. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100077.

Expanding Clinician Access to High-Quality, Low-Cost Biomechanical Research: A Technical Report on the Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Biomechanics Laboratory.

Hani U, Chewning S, Bohl M Cureus. 2023; 15(4):e37367.

PMID: 37182033 PMC: 10171874. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.37367.

3D-Printed Disease Models for Neurosurgical Planning, Simulation, and Training.

Park C J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2022; 65(4):489-498.

PMID: 35762226 PMC: 9271812. DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2021.0235.

Utility of a Novel Biomimetic Spine Model in Surgical Education: Case Series of Three Cervicothoracic Kyphotic Deformities.

Bohl M, McBryan S, Kakarla U, Leveque J, Sethi R Global Spine J. 2020; 10(5):583-591.

PMID: 32677566 PMC: 7359677. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219865182.

References

Aboud E, Al-Mefty O, Yasargil M . New laboratory model for neurosurgical training that simulates live surgery. J Neurosurg. 2003; 97(6):1367-72. DOI: 10.3171/jns.2002.97.6.1367. View

Woodrow S, Dubrowski A, Khokhotva M, Backstein D, Rampersaud Y, Massicotte E . Training and evaluating spinal surgeons: the development of novel performance measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 32(25):2921-5. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815b6495. View

Jagannathan J, Vates G, Pouratian N, Sheehan J, Patrie J, Grady M . Impact of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education work-hour regulations on neurosurgical resident education and productivity. J Neurosurg. 2009; 110(5):820-7. DOI: 10.3171/2009.2.JNS081446. View

Walker J, Perkins E, Harkey H . A novel simulation model for minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2009; 65(6 Suppl):188-95. DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000341534.82210.1B. View

Bass T . Certification and competency in interventional cardiology: the changing landscape. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(4):450-3. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.972844. View

Ganju A, Aoun S, Daou M, El Ahmadieh T, Chang A, Wang L . The role of simulation in neurosurgical education: a survey of 99 United States neurosurgery program directors. World Neurosurg. 2012; 80(5):e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2012.11.066. View

Selden N, Origitano T, Hadjipanayis C, Byrne R . Model-based simulation for early neurosurgical learners. Neurosurgery. 2013; 73 Suppl 1:15-24. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000058. View

Harrop J, Rezai A, Hoh D, Ghobrial G, Sharan A . Neurosurgical training with a novel cervical spine simulator: posterior foraminotomy and laminectomy. Neurosurgery. 2013; 73 Suppl 1:94-9. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000103. View

Belykh E, Byvaltsev V . Off-the-job microsurgical training on dry models: Siberian experience. World Neurosurg. 2014; 82(1-2):20-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.01.018. View

10.

Oliveira Magaldi M, Nicolato A, Godinho J, Santos M, Prosdocimi A, Malheiros J . Human placenta aneurysm model for training neurosurgeons in vascular microsurgery. Neurosurgery. 2014; 10 Suppl 4:592-600. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000553. View

11.

Hirata M, Morris S, Sugata H, Matsushita K, Yanagisawa T, Kishima H . Patient-specific contour-fitting sheet electrodes for electrocorticographic brain machine interfaces. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015; 2014:5204-7. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944798. View

12.

Bohm P, Arnold P . Simulation and resident education in spinal neurosurgery. Surg Neurol Int. 2015; 6:33. PMC: 4348802. DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.152146. View

13.

Mashiko T, Konno T, Kaneko N, Watanabe E . Training in Brain Retraction Using a Self-Made Three-Dimensional Model. World Neurosurg. 2015; 84(2):585-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.03.058. View

14.

Rehder R, Abd-El-Barr M, Hooten K, Weinstock P, Madsen J, Cohen A . The role of simulation in neurosurgery. Childs Nerv Syst. 2015; 32(1):43-54. DOI: 10.1007/s00381-015-2923-z. View

15.

Vakharia V, Vakharia N, Hill C . Review of 3-Dimensional Printing on Cranial Neurosurgery Simulation Training. World Neurosurg. 2016; 88:188-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.12.031. View

16.

Mulford J, Babazadeh S, Mackay N . Three-dimensional printing in orthopaedic surgery: review of current and future applications. ANZ J Surg. 2016; 86(9):648-53. DOI: 10.1111/ans.13533. View

17.

Randazzo M, Pisapia J, Singh N, Thawani J . 3D printing in neurosurgery: A systematic review. Surg Neurol Int. 2016; 7(Suppl 33):S801-S809. PMC: 5122816. DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.194059. View

18.

Nguyen Y, Mamelle E, De Seta D, Sterkers O, Bernardeschi D, Torres R . Modifications to a 3D-printed temporal bone model for augmented stapes fixation surgery teaching. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; 274(7):2733-2739. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-017-4572-1. View

19.

Belykh E, Miller E, Lei T, Chapple K, Byvaltsev V, Spetzler R . Face, Content, and Construct Validity of an Aneurysm Clipping Model Using Human Placenta. World Neurosurg. 2017; 105:952-960.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.045. View

20.

Langridge B, Momin S, Coumbe B, Woin E, Griffin M, Butler P . Systematic Review of the Use of 3-Dimensional Printing in Surgical Teaching and Assessment. J Surg Educ. 2017; 75(1):209-221. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.06.033. View