Introduction
With regard to nomenclature throughout this review, the term body donor(s) will be used when human remains are known to have been donated. Otherwise, terms such as deceased human bodies, deceased person, or decedents will be used whenever possible. This nomenclature comes in an effort to limit or eliminate the commonly used term “cadaver” which objectifies the human body.
Deceased human bodies are utilized in many different ways as part of anatomical education and clinical training (Hammer et al.
2015; Hayashi et al.
2016; Homma et al.
2016,
2019; Salameh et al.
2020). Advancements in anatomical knowledge, research, surgical technology, surgical techniques, and pedagogy have, likewise, advanced donor-based surgical simulation (Gilbody et al.
2011; James et al.
2019; Shichinohe and Kobayashi
2021). This is still the case even though the use of animals is still very common and modern technology is becoming an integral part of surgical training (Robert et al.
2006). A recent review study highlighted the use of virtual reality and augmented reality in surgery and how they will soon become part of the standard of care (Ghaednia et al.
2021). Having said that, human remains are still considered high-fidelity with regard to training in several clinical disciplines, such as radiology (Balta et al.
2017), clinical skills (Byrne et al.
2008; Sharma et al.
2013), procedural skills (Kovacs et al.
2018), otolaryngology (Musbahi et al.
2017) and surgical skills (Hayashi et al.
2016) among others. Utilizing human material has been reported in several surgical specialties (James et al.
2019). Accordingly, donor-based surgical simulation has undoubtedly improved the practice of surgery and its outcomes. Thus, human body donors are foundational for such advancements. The value of working with body-donors significantly increase as medical schools reduce or eliminate the work with human body donors (Singal et al.
2020).
In 2012, the International Associations of Anatomists recommended that only donated bodies should be used in the study of anatomy. Despite the value of donor-based surgical simulation training, its application may be hampered by difficulties regarding access to donor bodies (Harris et al.
2015). This has opened the door to for-profit companies who would sell deceased human bodies that have been obtained under ethically questionable terms for the purpose of profit. In the United States, there is little regulatory guidance on the distribution and procurement of whole-body donors and, therefore, providing no processes for accountability and oversight (Champney
2016). When comparing organ to whole body donation, it becomes clear that people are more aware and willing to donate their organs versus their whole bodies (Oktem et al.
2020). More research has been conducted on the knowledge, attitude and practices regarding organ donation compared to whole body donation (Ballala et al.
2011). Indeed, many factors impact the access to donated human materials for education and research. These factors could be financial, legal, ethical, religious and technical (Balta et al.
2015). Accordingly, access to donor bodies and, thus, access to donor-based surgical simulation training, will differ based upon geographical location. To increase access to donors and maximize the benefits form this donation, recent studies have investigated different preservation methods that would increase the period by which clinicians can work with the donor while maintaining life like characteristics (Balta et al.
2015).
Therefore, the authors aim to detail body donation and body acquisition with regard to surgical simulation training programs around the world. It should be noted that this review does not detail each and every body donation program or donor-based surgical simulation program around the globe. Rather, the review aims to provide a thorough overview that accurately captures the essence of body donation and surgical training throughout the world.
Intercontinental
Intercontinental body donation and acquisition
As aforementioned, there is a wide spectrum of needs, policies, regulations, experiences, and challenges across the above-mentioned six continents. This necessitates the need for global collaborations among body donation programs and individuals working with human body donors. Several groups such as the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists-Ethics and Medical Humanities and the American Association for Anatomy-Human Body Donor Task Force are working in these directions and more is needed to advocate for the donors’ best interests and maximize the benefits from this generous gift. These efforts are important to help share experiences and promote best practices.
On the other hand, questions could be raised on the possibility of establishing an intercontinental body donation database to help meet the demand in countries facing low rates of body donation. These suggestions have always been faced with ethical, legal and financial challenges. Some of these ethical questions are related to the donors’ knowledge of such activities and their ability to choose which countries they would be willing to donate to. Moreover, it is difficult to oversee the work being done with the donors and, likewise, ensure proper respect for donor bodies. Moreover, the legal frameworks governing the work with deceased human bodies might impact the ability to establish such collaborations.
While this formal intercontinental collaboration remains to be a suggested solution, many entities are already sending or receiving deceased human bodies across international borders. Questions are raised about the ethics of such practice. As a relatively expensive option, it is important to highlight the notion that monetary profits may be gained as a result of body donation. The concept of profit neutrality associated with body donation is particularly important to consider, especially in these circumstances. These practices can also create new challenges for example, donors are being sent from India to other countries, while local medical colleges in India are not able to meet the demand for their own institutions.
Intercontinental surgical training
There are several donor-based surgical simulation courses, like the aforementioned “Anatomy of Surgical Exposure” course, that are inclusive of an international population. For example, Blázquez Hernando et al. (
2020) report an assessment of the utility of a hands-on workshop on abdominal wall reconstruction, which has been ongoing for the past 6 years. The course, based at Henares University Hospital, which has an educational collaboration program with Francisco de Vitoria University, Spain, is a 2-day long course with 10–12 experienced surgeons in attendance for the benefit of the trainees, numbering 192, who come from Europe, South Africa, and the Middle East (Blázquez Hernando et al.
2020). The trainee–surgeons reported very-high satisfaction with the donor-based simulation (Blázquez Hernando et al.
2020).
Conversely, rather than surgeons traveling internationally, the donor-based surgical training module can travel internationally. For example, Aboud et al. (
2015) reported a “Live Cadaver Model” in which artificial blood was pumped through heads with artificial and real aneurysms for surgical training at different locations. Aboud et al. (
2015) report training 203 neurosurgical residents and 89 neurosurgeons and faculty members among 13 courses held in the United States and abroad (e.g., National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan). Similarly, many surgical training models have utilized perfused human body donors (Willaert et al.
2018). Such models include perfusion of saline mimicking natural cerebrospinal fluid flow for the surgical simulation of neuro-endoscopic procedures (Winer et al.
2015).
It is worth mentioning that the language barrier is one of the main limitations of this review. While many of the university websites provided English translations, it was difficult to gather information from websites that did not offer this service. Therefore, the authors were biased in relying on sources written in English.
Conclusions
The results of this review highlight discrepancies regarding body donation practices between continents and countries. Regardless of international recommendations for best practices, many countries continue to rely upon mostly or exclusively unclaimed bodies. The practice of donor-based surgical simulation as well as reports of novel utilization of donor bodies in surgical simulation appear to mirror body donation practices. In countries that rely mostly or exclusively upon unclaimed bodies and executed criminals, there are scant reports of decedent-based surgical simulation programs. In countries where willed-body donation is common, there tend to be many donor-based surgical simulation programs. Moreover, nearly all studies of donor-based surgical simulation programs note that the programs are beneficial and effective. Likewise, several reports have made note of the cost-effectiveness of donor-based simulation training.
Difficulties in developing a vibrant willed-body donation program are diverse and differ among varied cultures and geography. However, this review suggests that the lack of surgical simulation programs (programs which reports overwhelmingly suggest are efficacious) might be reflective of difficulties in developing a vibrant and active willed-body donation program. Thus, medical schools might strive to develop active willed-body donation programs to subsequently incorporate beneficial donor-based surgical simulation programs. Such surgical simulation programs may, in effect, aid in the perpetualization of willed-donor programs. This report also highlights the important contribution and impact that that body donors have upon surgical trainees and, as an extension, patient care.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.