Asian journal of surgery · 2023
Evaluation of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), Simubone™, and photopolymer resin as 3D printed temporal bone models for surgical simulation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cafino Rentor, Soliven Maria Monique Theresita, Velasco Lemuel Clark, Lopez Kim Harold
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Among types of 3D printing, fused deposition modeling (FDM) and digital light processing (DLP) are the most accessible, making them attractive, low-cost options for simulating surgical procedures. This study characterized and compared inexpensive, synthetic temporal bone models printed using Resin, PETG, and Simubone™.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study compared models made of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), Simubone™ produced from a FDM printer, and photopolymer resin from a DLP printer. These temporal bone models were processed by: (1) DICOM files from a patient's CT scan were segmented to define critical parts expected in a temporal bone surgery. (2) The model was appended with a base that articulates with a 3D-printed temporal bone holder. (3) The refined, patient-specific model was manufactured using FDM and DLP printing technologies. (4) The models were sent to evaluators, who assessed the models based on anatomic accuracy, dissection experience, and its applicability as a surgical simulation tool for temporal bone dissection.
RESULTS: The photopolymer resin outperformed PETG and Simubone™ in terms of anatomical accuracy and dissection experience. Additionally, resin and PETG were evaluated to be appropriate for simple mastoidectomy and canal wall down mastoidectomy while Simubone™ was only suitable for simple mastoidectomy. All models were unsuitable for posterior tympanotomy and labyrinthectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: Photopolymer resin and PETG have shown to be suitable materials for dissection models with 3D-printed resin models showing more accuracy in replicating anatomical structures and dissection experience. Hence, the use of 3D-printed temporal bones may be a suitable low-cost alternative to cadaveric dissection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study compared models made of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), Simubone™ produced from a FDM printer, and photopolymer resin from a DLP printer. These temporal bone models were processed by: (1) DICOM files from a patient's CT scan were segmented to define critical parts expected in a temporal bone surgery. (2) The model was appended with a base that articulates with a 3D-printed temporal bone holder. (3) The refined, patient-specific model was manufactured using FDM and DLP printing technologies. (4) The models were sent to evaluators, who assessed the models based on anatomic accuracy, dissection experience, and its applicability as a surgical simulation tool for temporal bone dissection.
RESULTS: The photopolymer resin outperformed PETG and Simubone™ in terms of anatomical accuracy and dissection experience. Additionally, resin and PETG were evaluated to be appropriate for simple mastoidectomy and canal wall down mastoidectomy while Simubone™ was only suitable for simple mastoidectomy. All models were unsuitable for posterior tympanotomy and labyrinthectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: Photopolymer resin and PETG have shown to be suitable materials for dissection models with 3D-printed resin models showing more accuracy in replicating anatomical structures and dissection experience. Hence, the use of 3D-printed temporal bones may be a suitable low-cost alternative to cadaveric dissection.