Development and Validation of a Novel Human-Fixed Cadaveric Model Reproducing Cerebrospinal Fluid Circulation for Simulation of Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic endonasal surgery is a well-established surgical approach to the skull base. Surgeons need a reusable long-lasting tool to acquire the skills needed for skull base reconstruction. The aim of this study was to elaborate and validate a human formalin-fixed cadaveric model that reproduces a realistic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) circulation and that adequately renders a CSF leak. METHODS: An external ventricular drain that connects with a peristaltic pump is placed in the subarachnoid space, which allows a water circulation that reproduces CSF circulation. Intracranial pressure is measured in real time. Endoscopic endonasal skull base approaches are performed, to create different skull base openings and CSF leaks. Participants were tasked with reconstruction of the defects using a standardized multilayered approach, with the goal of obtaining a watertight closure under normal intracranial pressure ranges. Compiled data included time of reconstruction, years of experience of participants, and success/failure to achieve a watertight reconstruction. A Likert questionnaire was also used. RESULTS: The cadaveric model reproduced CSF circulation in 4 types of dural defects: sellar, suprasellar, transcribriform, and transclival. Intracranial pressures were similar to physiological conditions and were reproducible. Each model was tested multiple times, over several months. Success rates concurred with training levels (r = .8282 and P = .0017). A strong inverse correlation was also found between years of experience and time of reconstruction (r = .4977 and P < .0001). Participants agreed that the model was realistic (median Likert score of 4), and they strongly agreed that it allowed for the improvement of their surgical skills (median Likert score of 5). CONCLUSION: This novel human-fixed cadaveric model for CSF circulation is efficient and adequately reproduces surgical conditions for skull base approaches. The model is unique, easy to reproduce, and reusable. It can be used as a tool for teaching and for research purposes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".