The Laryngoscope · 2015
Comparison of cadaveric and isomorphic three-dimensional printed models in temporal bone education.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Hochman Jordan B, Rhodes Charlotte, Wong Dana, Kraut Jay, Pisa Justyn, Unger Bertram
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Current three-dimensional (3D) printed simulations are complicated by insufficient void spaces and inconsistent density. We describe a novel simulation with focus on internal anatomic fidelity and evaluate against template/identical cadaveric education.
STUDY DESIGN: Research ethics board-approved prospective cohort study.
METHODS: Generation of a 3D printed temporal bone was performed using a proprietary algorithm that deconstructs the digital model into slices prior to printing. This supplemental process facilitates removal of residual material from air-containing spaces and permits requisite infiltrative access to the all regions of the model. Ten otolaryngology trainees dissected a cadaveric temporal bone (CTB) followed by a matched/isomorphic 3D printed bone model (PBM), based on derivative micro-computed tomography data. Participants rated 1) physical characteristics, 2) specific anatomic constructs, 3) usefulness in skill development, and 4) perceived educational value. The survey instrument employed a seven-point Likert scale.
RESULTS: Trainees felt physical characteristics of the PBM were quite similar to CTB, with highly ranked cortical (5.5 ± 1.5) and trabecular (5.2 ± 1.3) bone drill quality. The overall model was considered comparable to CTB (5.9 ± 0.74), with respectable air cell reproduction (6.1 ± 1.1). Internal constructs were rated as satisfactory (range, 4.9-6.2). The simulation was considered a beneficial training tool for all types of mastoidectomy (range, 5.9-6.6), posterior tympanotomy (6.5 ± 0.71), and skull base approaches (range, 6-6.5). Participants believed the model to be an effective training instrument (6.7 ± 0.68), which should be incorporated into the temporal bone lab (7.0 ± 0.0). The PBM was thought to improve confidence (6.7 ± 0.68) and operative performance (6.7 ± 0.48).
CONCLUSIONS: Study participants found the PBM to be an effective platform that compared favorably to CTB. The model was considered a valuable adjunctive training tool with both realistic mechanical and visual character.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA
STUDY DESIGN: Research ethics board-approved prospective cohort study.
METHODS: Generation of a 3D printed temporal bone was performed using a proprietary algorithm that deconstructs the digital model into slices prior to printing. This supplemental process facilitates removal of residual material from air-containing spaces and permits requisite infiltrative access to the all regions of the model. Ten otolaryngology trainees dissected a cadaveric temporal bone (CTB) followed by a matched/isomorphic 3D printed bone model (PBM), based on derivative micro-computed tomography data. Participants rated 1) physical characteristics, 2) specific anatomic constructs, 3) usefulness in skill development, and 4) perceived educational value. The survey instrument employed a seven-point Likert scale.
RESULTS: Trainees felt physical characteristics of the PBM were quite similar to CTB, with highly ranked cortical (5.5 ± 1.5) and trabecular (5.2 ± 1.3) bone drill quality. The overall model was considered comparable to CTB (5.9 ± 0.74), with respectable air cell reproduction (6.1 ± 1.1). Internal constructs were rated as satisfactory (range, 4.9-6.2). The simulation was considered a beneficial training tool for all types of mastoidectomy (range, 5.9-6.6), posterior tympanotomy (6.5 ± 0.71), and skull base approaches (range, 6-6.5). Participants believed the model to be an effective training instrument (6.7 ± 0.68), which should be incorporated into the temporal bone lab (7.0 ± 0.0). The PBM was thought to improve confidence (6.7 ± 0.68) and operative performance (6.7 ± 0.48).
CONCLUSIONS: Study participants found the PBM to be an effective platform that compared favorably to CTB. The model was considered a valuable adjunctive training tool with both realistic mechanical and visual character.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA