Literature DB >> 30419263

Multi-institutional Evaluation of Producing and Testing a Novel 3D-Printed Laparoscopic Trainer.

Egor Parkhomenko1, Renai Yoon1, Zhamshid Okhunov1, Roshan M Patel1, Benjamin Dolan2, Kamaljot Kaler1, Michael J Schwartz3, Paras H Shah3, Hannah Bierwiler3, Aldrin Joseph Gamboa4, Roberto Miano5, Stefano Germani5, Dario Del Fabbro5, Alessio Zordani6, Salvatore Micali6, Louis R Kavoussi3, Ralph V Clayman1, Jaime Landman7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To create, distribute, and evaluate the efficacy of a portable, cost-effective 3D-printed laparoscopic trainer for surgical skills development.
METHODS: The UCI Trainer (UCiT) laparoscopic simulator was developed via computer-aided designs (CAD), which were used to 3D-print the UCiT. Once assembled, a tablet computer with a rear-facing camera was attached for video and optics. Four institutions were sent the UCiT CAD files with a 3D-printer and instructions for UCiT assembly. For a comparison of the UCiT to a standard trainer, peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying skills were accessed. These tasks were scored, and participants were asked to rate their experience with the trainers. Lastly, a questionnaire was given to individuals who 3D-printed and assembled the UCiT.
RESULTS: We recruited 25 urologists; none had any 3D-printing experience. The cost of printing each trainer was $26.50 USD. Each institution used the Apple iPad for optics. Six of eight participants assembled the UCiT in < 45 minutes, and rated assembly as somewhat easy. On objective scoring, participants performed tasks equally well on the UCiT vs the conventional trainer. On subjective scoring, the conventional trainer provided a significantly better experience vs the UCiT; however, all reported that the UCiT was useful for surgical education.
CONCLUSION: The UCiT is a low cost, portable training tool that is easy to assemble and use. UCiT provided a platform whereby participants performed laparoscopic tasks equal to performing the same tasks on the more expensive, nonportable standard trainer.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30419263     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  4 in total

Review 1.  3D printing technology and its role in urological training.

Authors:  Brandon Smith; Prokar Dasgupta
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Innovations in Urologic Surgical Training.

Authors:  Runzhuo Ma; Sharath Reddy; Erik B Vanstrum; Andrew J Hung
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-03-13       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Review of the effect of 3D medical printing and virtual reality on urology training with ‘MedTRain3DModsim’ Erasmus + European Union Project

Authors:  İlkan Tatar; Emre Huri; İlker Selçuk; Young Lee Moon; Alberto Paoluzzi; Andreas Skolarikos
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 0.973

4.  Point-of-care manufacturing: a single university hospital's initial experience.

Authors:  Jose Antonio Calvo-Haro; Javier Pascau; José Manuel Asencio-Pascual; Felipe Calvo-Manuel; Maria José Cancho-Gil; Juan Francisco Del Cañizo López; María Fanjul-Gómez; Roberto García-Leal; Guillermo González-Casaurrán; Manuel González-Leyte; Juan Antonio León-Luis; Lydia Mediavilla-Santos; Santiago Ochandiano-Caicoya; Ramón Pérez-Caballero; Almudena Ribed-Sánchez; Javier Río-Gómez; Eduardo Sánchez-Pérez; Javier Serrano-Andreu; Manuel Tousidonis-Rial; Javier Vaquero-Martín; Sonia García San José; Rubén Perez-Mañanes
Journal:  3D Print Med       Date:  2021-04-22
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.