J H D Fasel1, J Beinemann, K Schaller, P Gailloud. 1. University of Geneva, Switzerland; Clinical Anatomy Research Group, Department of Cellular Physiology and Metabolism, University Medical Center, Rue Michel-Servet 1, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland. jean.fasel@unige.ch.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical replicas of organs are used increasingly for preoperative planning. The quality of these models is generally accepted by surgeons. In view of the strong trend towards minimally invasive and personalised surgery, however, the aim of this investigation was to assess qualitatively the accuracy of such replicas, using skull models as an example. METHODS: Skull imaging was acquired for three cadavers by computed tomography using clinical routine parameters. After digital three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction, physical replicas were produced by 3D printing. The facsimilia were analysed systematically and compared with the best gold standard possible: the macerated skull itself. RESULTS: The skull models were far from anatomically accurate. Non-conforming rendering was observed in particular for foramina, sutures, notches, fissures, grooves, channels, tuberosities, thin-walled structures, sharp peaks and crests, and teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should be aware that preoperative models may not yet render the exact anatomy of the patient under consideration and are advised to continue relying, in specific conditions, on their own analysis of the native computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.
INTRODUCTION: Physical replicas of organs are used increasingly for preoperative planning. The quality of these models is generally accepted by surgeons. In view of the strong trend towards minimally invasive and personalised surgery, however, the aim of this investigation was to assess qualitatively the accuracy of such replicas, using skull models as an example. METHODS: Skull imaging was acquired for three cadavers by computed tomography using clinical routine parameters. After digital three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction, physical replicas were produced by 3D printing. The facsimilia were analysed systematically and compared with the best gold standard possible: the macerated skull itself. RESULTS: The skull models were far from anatomically accurate. Non-conforming rendering was observed in particular for foramina, sutures, notches, fissures, grooves, channels, tuberosities, thin-walled structures, sharp peaks and crests, and teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should be aware that preoperative models may not yet render the exact anatomy of the patient under consideration and are advised to continue relying, in specific conditions, on their own analysis of the native computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.
Authors: George A Brown; Keikhosrow Firoozbakhsh; Thomas A DeCoster; José R Reyna; Moheb Moneim Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: F Rengier; A Mehndiratta; H von Tengg-Kobligk; C M Zechmann; R Unterhinninghofen; H-U Kauczor; F L Giesel Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Francesco Conversano; Roberto Franchini; Christian Demitri; Laurent Massoptier; Francesco Montagna; Alfonso Maffezzoli; Antonio Malvasi; Sergio Casciaro Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Daniel Schmauss; Christoph Schmitz; Amir Koshrow Bigdeli; Stefan Weber; Nicholas Gerber; Andres Beiras-Fernandez; Florian Schwarz; Christoph Becker; Christian Kupatt; Ralf Sodian Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.330