Literature DB >> 27986443

3D-Printed Simulation Device for Orbital Surgery.

Juergen Thomas Lichtenstein1, Alexander Nicolai Zeller2, Juliana Lemound2, Thorsten Enno Lichtenstein3, Majeed Rana2, Nils-Claudius Gellrich2, Maximilian Eberhard Wagner4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Orbital surgery is a challenging procedure because of its complex anatomy. Training could especially benefit from dedicated study models. The currently available devices lack sufficient anatomical representation and realistic soft tissue properties. Hence, we developed a 3D-printed simulation device for orbital surgery with tactual (haptic) correct simulation of all relevant anatomical structures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Based on computed tomography scans collected from patients treated in a third referral center, the hard and soft tissue were segmented and virtually processed to generate a 3D-model of the orbit. Hard tissue was then physically realized by 3D-printing. The soft tissue was manufactured by a composite silicone model of the nucleus and the surrounding tissue over a negative mold model also generated by 3D-printing. The final model was evaluated by a group of 5 trainees in oral and maxillofacial surgery (1) and a group of 5 consultants (2). All participants were asked to reconstruct an isolated orbital floor defect with a titanium implant. A stereotactic navigation system was available to all participants. Their experience was evaluated for haptic realism, correct representation of surgical approach, general handling of model, insertion of implant into the orbit, placement and fixation of implant, and usability of navigated control. The items were evaluated via nonparametric statistics (1 [poor]-5 [good]).
RESULTS: Group 1 gave an average mark of 4.0 (±0.9) versus 4.6 (±0.6) by group 2. The haptics were rated as 3.6 (±1.1) [1] and 4.2 (±0.8) [2]. The surgical approach was graded 3.7 (±1.2) [1] and 4.0 (±1.0) [2]. Handling of the models was rated 3.5 (±1.1) [1] and 4 (±0.7) [2]. The insertion of the implants was marked as 3.7 (±0.8) [1] and 4.2 (±0.8) [2]. Fixation of the implants was also perceived to be realistic with 3.6 (±0.9) [1] and 4.2 (±0.45) [2]. Lastly, surgical navigation was rated 3.8 (±0.8) [1] and 4.6 (±0.56) [2].
CONCLUSION: In this project, all relevant hard and soft tissue characteristics of orbital anatomy could be realized. Moreover, it was possible to demonstrate that the entire workflow of an orbital procedure may be simulated. Hence, using this model training expenses may be reduced and patient security could be enhanced.
Copyright © 2016 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medical Knowledge; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement; Professionalism; Systems-Based Practice; computer-aided design; computer-assisted surgery; orbit; simulation training; three-dimensional printing

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27986443     DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.07.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Educ        ISSN: 1878-7452            Impact factor:   2.891


  8 in total

1.  Emerging simulation technologies in global craniofacial surgical training.

Authors:  Divya Mehrotra; A F Markus
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2021-06-27

Review 2.  [Reconstructive orbital surgery].

Authors:  M E H Wagner; H Essig; M Rücker; T Gander
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Systematic review of three-dimensional printing for simulation training of interventional radiology trainees.

Authors:  Chase Tenewitz; Rebecca T Le; Mauricio Hernandez; Saif Baig; Travis E Meyer
Journal:  3D Print Med       Date:  2021-04-21

4.  Development and Learner-Based Assessment of a Novel, Customized, 3D Printed Small Bowel Simulator for Hand-Sewn Anastomosis Training.

Authors:  Merieme Habti; Florence Bénard; Artur Arutiunian; Simon Bérubé; Dominic Cadoret; Léamarie Meloche-Dumas; Andrei Torres; Bill Kapralos; Frédéric Mercier; Adam Dubrowski; Erica Patocskai
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-12-20

5.  3D printing in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a nationwide survey among university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany.

Authors:  Andreas Pabst; Elisabeth Goetze; Daniel G E Thiem; Alexander K Bartella; Lukas Seifert; Fabian M Beiglboeck; Juliane Kröplin; Jürgen Hoffmann; Alexander-N Zeller
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 6.  Establishing a point-of-care additive manufacturing workflow for clinical use.

Authors:  Georges E Daoud; Dante L Pezzutti; Calvin J Dolatowski; Ricardo L Carrau; Mary Pancake; Edward Herderick; Kyle K VanKoevering
Journal:  J Mater Res       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 3.089

7.  Three-dimensional Printing in Maxillofacial Surgery: Hype versus Reality.

Authors:  Alaa Aldaadaa; Nazanin Owji; Jonathan Knowles
Journal:  J Tissue Eng       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 7.813

Review 8.  3D Printing in Eye Care.

Authors:  Ryan D Larochelle; Scott E Mann; Cristos Ifantides
Journal:  Ophthalmol Ther       Date:  2021-07-29
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.