End User Comparison of Anatomically Matched 3‐Dimensional Printed and Virtual Haptic Temporal Bone Simulation

Hochman, Jordan B.; Rhodes, Charlotte; Kraut, Jay; Pisa, Justyn; Unger, Bertram

doi:10.1177/0194599815586756

Cited by 29 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous work illustrated surgical residents strongly preferred a 3D printed simulation over virtual . In large part, this preference was attributed to the realistic drilling experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surgery of the temporal bone requires knowledge of intricate three‐dimensional (3D) anatomical structures and highly developed technical skills. While a variety of software solutions have been developed for temporal bone simulation, most systems employ similar off‐the‐shelf hardware platforms . One of the more commonly used systems is the Geomagic Touch (3DS, Rock Hill, SC) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By modifying the haptic hardware, it should be possible to achieve a more realistic temporal bone simulation with improved value. This would be significant as previous work has identified limitations in virtual temporal bone drill bone interaction as contrasted with both cadaveric and printed simulations …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Elements of virtual temporal bone surgery: Manipulandum format may be more important to surgeons than haptic device force capabilities

Unger

Sepehri

Rampersad

et al. 2017

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTemporal bone simulations are critiqued for poor drill‐bone interaction. This project appraises the import of increasing haptic device and manipulandum fidelity on the perceived realism of drilling a virtual temporal bone.Virtual surgical contact forces rely on haptic device fidelity and are transmitted through a manipulandum. With identical software, both device hardware and manipulandum may each contribute to realism. We compare the three degrees of freedom (DOF), 3N Geomagic Touch (3D Systems, SC) to a 6DOF, 5.5N HD2 (Quanser, ON) with the both standard (“HD2–Standard”) and in‐house customized otic drill manipulandum (“HD2–Modified”).MethodsSix otologic surgeons performed three virtual mastoidectomy surgeries on a temporal bone surgical simulator. The HD2 manipulandum was modified for attached otic drill with gravity compensation and requisite mechanical modifications. Surgeons, in random order, performed the dissection with the different hardware platforms.ResultsTwo‐tailed t‐tests demonstrate that for the acoustic properties of each simulation, the HD2–Modified manipulandum was favored (p ≤ 0.0004). For overall similarity of bone, both HD2–Standard (p ≤ 0.05) HD2–Modified (p ≤ 0.03)) were favored over the Geomagic; however they were not appreciably different when directly compared to each other. There was no preference for increasing haptic device fidelity in virtual drill bone interaction.In forced rank, users favored the HD2–Modified in osseus, vibrational and overall realism, as well as being preferred for education and preoperative rehearsal (p ≤ 0.0164).ConclusionIncreasing manipulandum realism was favored. However surprisingly, there was no preference for increased device fidelity, illustrating incremental stiffness had nominal impact. There may be a ceiling to drill bone interaction in virtual haptic simulation.Level of Evidence2b.

show abstract

“…Previous work illustrated surgical residents strongly preferred a 3D printed simulation over virtual . In large part, this preference was attributed to the realistic drilling experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Elements of virtual temporal bone surgery: Manipulandum format may be more important to surgeons than haptic device force capabilities

Unger

Sepehri

Rampersad

et al. 2017

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trainees rated this platform reasonably highly for anatomical accuracy, but expressed reservations about its haptic properties. In a direct comparison, this virtual reality simulator was rated as of lower educational value when compared to the Hochman plastic temporal bone …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of simulation platforms in surgery of the temporal bone

Bhutta

2016

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three-dimensional (3D) printing is now a widely used tool in pre-operative planning (Arvier et al 1994;Berry et al 1997;Potamianos et al 1998;Petzold et al 1999;Chang et al 2003;Seitz et al 2004;Mahaisavariya et al 2006;Jacobs et al 2008;Singare et al 2009;Honiball, 2010;Giovinco et al 2012;Krishnan et al 2012;Tam et al 2012;Klein et al 2013;Zein et al 2013;Duncan et al 2015;Huang et al 2015;Rose et al 2015b), surgical teaching (Cohen & Reyes, 2015;Huang et al 2015;Scawn et al 2015) and simulator training (Benet et al 2015;Ryan et al 2015Ryan et al , 2016, and attitudes toward image donation for 3D printing in anatomy education as oppposed to body donation may be more favourable (Abouhashem et al 2017). Creating multi-material 3D prints that mechanically resemble real tissues is a primary focus within these educational domains (Mori et al 2010;Hochman et al 2013Hochman et al , 2015aLipton et al 2014;Rose et al 2015a,b), yet models that precisely match the biomechanical and visual qualities of human tissue do not currently exist. Advances in this area require knowledge of both engineering and a familiarity with the physical and biomechanical properties of each of the various human tissues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in creating dissectible anatomical 3D prints for surgical teaching

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three‐dimensional (3D) printing, or additive manufacturing, is now a widely used tool in pre‐operative planning, surgical teaching and simulator training. However, 3D printing technology that produces models with accurate haptic feedback, biomechanics and visuals for the training surgeon is not currently available. Challenges and opportunities in creating such surgical models will be discussed in this review paper. Surgery requires proper tissue handling as well as knowledge of relevant anatomy. To prepare doctors properly, training models need to take into account the biomechanical properties of the anatomical structures that will be manipulated in any given operation. This review summarises and evaluates the current biomechanical literature as it relates to human tissues and correlates the impact of this knowledge on developing high fidelity 3D printed surgical training models. We conclude that, currently, a printer technology has not yet been developed which can replicate many of the critical qualities of human tissue. Advances in 3D printing technology will be required to allow the printing of multi‐material products to achieve the mechanical properties required.

show abstract

End User Comparison of Anatomically Matched 3‐Dimensional Printed and Virtual Haptic Temporal Bone Simulation

Abstract: Appraisal of a PBM and a VM found both to have perceived educational benefit. However, the PBM was considered to have more realistic physical properties and was considered the preferred training instrument.

Cited by 29 publications

References 20 publications

Elements of virtual temporal bone surgery: Manipulandum format may be more important to surgeons than haptic device force capabilities

Elements of virtual temporal bone surgery: Manipulandum format may be more important to surgeons than haptic device force capabilities

A review of simulation platforms in surgery of the temporal bone

Challenges in creating dissectible anatomical 3D prints for surgical teaching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About