End User Comparison of Anatomically Matched 3‐Dimensional Printed and Virtual Haptic Temporal Bone Simulation: A Pilot Study. (5th June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hochman, Jordan Brent; Rhodes, Charlotte; Kraut, Jay; Pisa, Justyn; Unger, Bertram
• Is Part Of: Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery. Volume 153:Number 2(2015:Aug.)
• Page Start: 263
• Page End: 268
• Publication Date: 2015-06-05
• Subjects: haptic -- 3‐dimensional -- virtual -- reality -- temporal -- bone -- surgery -- training -- education; Head -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neck -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1177/0194599815586756
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0194-5998

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Simulation has assumed a prominent role in education. It is important to explore the effectiveness of different modalities. In this article, we directly compare surgical resident impression of 2 distinct temporal bone simulations (physical and haptic). Study Design: Research Ethics Board–approved prospective cohort study. Setting: A haptic voxel‐based virtual model (VM) and a physical 3‐dimensional printed temporal bone model (PBM) were developed. Participants rated each construct on a number of parameters and performed a direct comparison of the simulations using a survey instrument that employed a 7‐point Likert scale and rank lists. Subjects and Methods: Ten otolaryngology residents dissected anatomically identical, matched physical and virtual models. Data for both simulations originated from 10 unique cadaveric micro–computed tomography images. Results: Subjects rated the PBM drill quality as being more similar to cadaveric temporal bone than the VM (cortical bone mean: 5.5 vs 3.2, P =. 011; trabecular bone mean: 5.2 vs 2.8, P =. 004) and with better air cell system representation (mean: 5.4 vs 4.5, P =. 003). Subjects strongly agreed that both simulations are effective educational tools, but they rated the PBM higher (mean: 6.7 vs 5.4, P =. 019). Notably, subjects agreed that both modalities should be integrated into training, but they were more favorably inclined toward the PBM (mean: 7.0 vs 5.5, P =. 002). In direct comparison, the PBM was the preferred simulation in 7 of 9 educational domains. Conclusions: Appraisal of a PBM and a VM found both to have perceived educational benefit. However, the PBM was considered to have more realistic physical properties and was considered the preferred training instrument.