Paul Jahnke1, Felix Benjamin Schwarz2, Marco Ziegert2, Tobias Almasi2, Owais Abdelhadi2, Maximilian Nunninger2, Bernd Hamm2, Michael Scheel2. 1. Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. paul.jahnke@charite.de. 2. Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop an anthropomorphic phantom closely mimicking patient anatomy and to evaluate the phantom for the simulation of computed tomography (CT)-guided procedures. METHODS: Patient CT images were printed with aqueous potassium iodide solution (1 g/mL) on paper. The printed paper sheets were stacked in alternation with 1-mm thick polyethylene foam layers, cut to the patient shape and glued together to create an anthropomorphic abdomen phantom. Ten interventional radiologists performed periradicular infiltration on the phantom and rated the phantom procedure regarding different aspects of suitability for simulating CT-guided procedures. RESULTS: Radiopaque printing in combination with polyethylene foam layers achieved a phantom with detailed patient anatomy that allowed needle placement. CT-guided periradicular infiltration on the phantom was rated highly realistic for simulation of anatomy, needle navigation and overall course of the procedure. Haptics were rated as intermediately realistic. Participants strongly agreed that the phantom was suitable for training and learning purposes. CONCLUSIONS: A radiopaque 3D printed, anthropomorphic phantom provides a realistic platform for the simulation of CT-guided procedures. Future work will focus on application for training and procedure optimisation. KEY POINTS: • Radiopaque 3D printing combined with polyethylene foam achieves patient phantoms for CT-guided procedures. • Radiopaque 3D printed, anthropomorphic phantoms allow realistic simulation of CT-guided procedures. • Realistic visual guidance is a key aspect in simulation of CT-guided procedures. • Three-dimensional printed phantoms provide a platform for training and optimisation of CT-guided procedures.
OBJECTIVES: To develop an anthropomorphic phantom closely mimicking patient anatomy and to evaluate the phantom for the simulation of computed tomography (CT)-guided procedures. METHODS:Patient CT images were printed with aqueous potassium iodide solution (1 g/mL) on paper. The printed paper sheets were stacked in alternation with 1-mm thick polyethylene foam layers, cut to the patient shape and glued together to create an anthropomorphic abdomen phantom. Ten interventional radiologists performed periradicular infiltration on the phantom and rated the phantom procedure regarding different aspects of suitability for simulating CT-guided procedures. RESULTS: Radiopaque printing in combination with polyethylene foam layers achieved a phantom with detailed patient anatomy that allowed needle placement. CT-guided periradicular infiltration on the phantom was rated highly realistic for simulation of anatomy, needle navigation and overall course of the procedure. Haptics were rated as intermediately realistic. Participants strongly agreed that the phantom was suitable for training and learning purposes. CONCLUSIONS: A radiopaque 3D printed, anthropomorphic phantom provides a realistic platform for the simulation of CT-guided procedures. Future work will focus on application for training and procedure optimisation. KEY POINTS: • Radiopaque 3D printing combined with polyethylene foam achieves patient phantoms for CT-guided procedures. • Radiopaque 3D printed, anthropomorphic phantoms allow realistic simulation of CT-guided procedures. • Realistic visual guidance is a key aspect in simulation of CT-guided procedures. • Three-dimensional printed phantoms provide a platform for training and optimisation of CT-guided procedures.
Authors: Gunnar Ahlberg; Lars Enochsson; Anthony G Gallagher; Leif Hedman; Christian Hogman; David A McClusky; Stig Ramel; C Daniel Smith; Dag Arvidsson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Carsten Moser; Jan Becker; Martin Deli; Martin Busch; Marc Boehme; Dietrich H W Groenemeyer Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Maarten W Kroes; Wendy M H Busser; Jurgen J Fütterer; Mark J Arntz; Caroline M M Janssen; Yvonne L Hoogeveen; Frank de Lange; Leo J Schultze Kool Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Elaine R Cohen; Joe Feinglass; Jeffrey H Barsuk; Cynthia Barnard; Anna O'Donnell; William C McGaghie; Diane B Wayne Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: Paul Jahnke; Felix R P Limberg; Andreas Gerbl; Gracia L Ardila Pardo; Victor P B Braun; Bernd Hamm; Michael Scheel Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Timothy J Draycott; Joanna F Crofts; Jonathan P Ash; Louise V Wilson; Elaine Yard; Thabani Sibanda; Andrew Whitelaw Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Maximilian Nunninger; Victor Paul Bela Braun; Marco Ziegert; Felix Benjamin Schwarz; Bernd Hamm; Michael Scheel; Paul Jahnke Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-12-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Martin L Tomov; Alexander Cetnar; Katherine Do; Holly Bauser-Heaton; Vahid Serpooshan Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Kyriakos Flouris; Oscar Jimenez-Del-Toro; Christoph Aberle; Michael Bach; Roger Schaer; Markus M Obmann; Bram Stieltjes; Henning Müller; Adrien Depeursinge; Ender Konukoglu Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: R Kaufmann; C J Zech; M Takes; P Brantner; F Thieringer; M Deutschmann; K Hergan; B Scharinger; S Hecht; R Rezar; B Wernly; M Meissnitzer Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 4.056