Failure mode and effects analysis in designing a virtual reality‐based training simulator for bilateral sagittal split osteotomy

Abstract

FMEA seems to be a suitable tool in the design phase of developing medical simulators. Herein, it serves as a communication medium for knowledge transfer between the medical experts and the system developers. The method encourages a reflective process and allows identification of the most important elements and scenarios that need to be trained.

"Let’s Meet and Work it Out": Understanding and Mitigating Encountered-Type of Haptic Devices Failure Modes in VR

“…The aim is to identify the potential failures in ETHDs, and to provide a framework highlighting these interfaces' mitigation solutions, implicitly promoted in the literature. The FMEA approach was previously used in its entirety (criticality etc) to define specifications of a VR system [49], yet in this paper we do not critically analyse a given application but provide a groundwork for future ETHD designers to get acquainted with future potential challenges and to be aware of the current solutions to solve them. This paper provides an overview of the ETHD literature through an original and practical approach.…”

“…This FMEA approach helps identify the requirements and specifications of a given interface, therefore it can also help to identify how to refine them afterwards. This was used for a VR simulator [49] and can be adapted to other applications. It is efficient to highlight potential failures both from the designer and user perspectives.…”

Modification of the mandibular split based on a physical model

“…Another article by Sofronia et al described failure mode and effect analysis for the design of a virtual reality-based simulator for bilateral sagittal split osteotomies. 34 It is unknown if this project had ever been realized. Probably the algorithm to calculate the applied stress within the mandible was based on the finite element analysis (FEA).…”

“…A relapse can occur if the condyles are mal-positioned during rigid osteosynthesis either with bicortical screws or with miniplates. 30 Different concepts have been used to secure the condyle in the correct position: Most common is the repositioning by hand, 31,32 other options are registration with mechanical devices, 33,34 registration by ultrasound 35 or registration by navigation. 36 Damage to the IAN Permanent postoperative damage to the IAN can be seen on average in about 5-10% of all patients with a range from 3% to 81%.…”

“…According to the literature, postoperative damage varies from 13% to 40%. 32,33 Teerijoki-Oksa et al 34 identified the splitting maneuver itself as one of the 2 main risks of damaging the IAN. It is common sense that a sufficiently deep cut to the inferior mandibular rim is crucial for a good splitting.…”