Multidirectional In Vivo Characterization of Skin Using Wiener Nonlinear Stochastic System Identification Techniques

Parker, Matthew D.; Jones, Lynette A.; Hunter, Ian W.; Taberner, Andrew J.; Nash, Martyn P.; Nielsen, Poul M. F.

doi:10.1115/1.4034993

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During full-text review, study citations were examined, and 20 articles were identified and included. A total of 186 papers 29–31,33–215 were included for data extraction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applied use of biomechanical measurements from human tissues for the development of medical skills trainers: a scoping review

Kriener,

Whiting,

Storr

et al. 2023

JBI Evidence Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this review was to identify quantitative biomechanical measurements of human tissues, the methods for obtaining these measurements, and the primary motivations for conducting biomechanical research. Introduction: Medical skills trainers are a safe and useful tool for clinicians to use when learning or practicing medical procedures. The haptic fidelity of these devices is often poor, which may be because the synthetic materials chosen for these devices do not have the same mechanical properties as human tissues. This review investigates a heterogenous body of literature to identify which biomechanical properties are available for human tissues, the methods for obtaining these values, and the primary motivations behind conducting biomechanical tests. Inclusion criteria: Studies containing quantitative measurements of the biomechanical properties of human tissues were included. Studies that primarily focused on dynamic and fluid mechanical properties were excluded. Additionally, studies only containing animal, in silico, or synthetic materials were excluded from this review. Methods: This scoping review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Sources of evidence were extracted from CINAHL (EBSCO), IEEE Xplore, MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and engineering conference proceedings. The search was limited to the English language. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts as well as full-text reviews. Any conflicts that arose during screening and full-text review were mediated by a third reviewer. Data extraction was conducted by 2 independent reviewers and discrepancies were mediated through discussion. The results are presented in tabular, figure, and narrative formats. Results: Data were extracted from a total of 186 full-text publications. All of the studies, except for 1, were experimental. Included studies came from 33 different countries, with the majority of the studies coming from the United States. Human tissues samples were ex vivo, and the most commonly studied tissue type was musculoskeletal. In this study, nearly 200 unique biomechanical values were reported, and the most commonly reported value was Young’s (elastic) modulus. The most common type of mechanical test performed was tensile testing, and the most common reason for testing human tissues was to characterize biomechanical properties. Although the number of published studies on biomechanical properties of human tissues has increased over the past 20 years, there are many gaps in the literature. Of the 186 included studies, only 7 used human tissues for the design or validation of medical skills training devices. Furthermore, in studies where biomechanical values for human tissues have been obtained, a lack of standardization in engineering assumptions, methodologies, and tissue preparation may implicate the usefulness of these values. Conclusions: This review is the first of its kind to give a broad overview of the biomechanics of human tissues in the published literature. With respect to high-fidelity haptics, there is a large gap in the published literature. Even in instances where biomechanical values are available, comparing or using these values is difficult. This is likely due to the lack of standardization in engineering assumptions, testing methodology, and reporting of the results. It is recommended that journals and/or experts in engineering fields conduct further research to investigate the feasibility of implementing reporting standards. Review Registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/fgb34

show abstract

“…During full-text review, study citations were examined, and 20 articles were identified and included. A total of 186 papers 29–31,33–215 were included for data extraction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%