American journal of otolaryngology · 2024
Comparison of capabilities and limitations of endoscopes in endoscopic ear surgeries using 3D printed models.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Balazova Klara, Belakova Petra, Snehota Martin, Trneckova Marketa, Vachutka Jaromir, Salzman Richard
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Endoscopic ear surgery has become a popular operative approach to treat middle ear diseases. Surgeons use either 0° or 30° endoscopes worldwide. The main aim of the work was to compare the properties of these two types of endoscopes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since this type of evaluation is hard to perform in vivo during the actual surgery, we designed 3D printed temporal bone models with different levels of complexity. The evaluation of endoscopes was based on image analysis or visibility of anatomical structures.
RESULTS: The results show that a 30° endoscope offers a view of lateral walls from 4 mm distance, contrary to a 0° endoscope which cannot see lateral walls from this distance at all. On the other hand, visible area of the anterior wall is up to 40 % larger using 0° endoscope, compared to 30° endoscope. Angled endoscope distorts the picture and leads to the deterioration of the image. At commonly used distances above 5 mm from middle ear structures, resolution and image distortion is comparable between both endoscopes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not offer a definitive opinion on which endoscope is better for ear surgery. Both types of endoscopes have advantages and disadvantages, and the choice depends on the surgeon's personal preference and on the type of planned procedure.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since this type of evaluation is hard to perform in vivo during the actual surgery, we designed 3D printed temporal bone models with different levels of complexity. The evaluation of endoscopes was based on image analysis or visibility of anatomical structures.
RESULTS: The results show that a 30° endoscope offers a view of lateral walls from 4 mm distance, contrary to a 0° endoscope which cannot see lateral walls from this distance at all. On the other hand, visible area of the anterior wall is up to 40 % larger using 0° endoscope, compared to 30° endoscope. Angled endoscope distorts the picture and leads to the deterioration of the image. At commonly used distances above 5 mm from middle ear structures, resolution and image distortion is comparable between both endoscopes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not offer a definitive opinion on which endoscope is better for ear surgery. Both types of endoscopes have advantages and disadvantages, and the choice depends on the surgeon's personal preference and on the type of planned procedure.