4.7 Article

Development of a 3D Printed Brain Model with Vasculature for Neurosurgical Procedure Visualisation and Training

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11020330

关键词

simulation; neurosurgery; 3D printing; endoscopic third ventriculostomy; ETV; virtual reality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed a realistic 3D printed model for training endoscopic third ventriculostomy. The model accurately replicated the size and anatomy of the brain structures, and proved to be a useful tool for training neuroendoscopic perception and navigation.
Background: Simulation-based techniques using three-dimensional models are gaining popularity in neurosurgical training. Most pre-existing models are expensive, so we felt a need to develop a real-life model using 3D printing technology to train in endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Methods: The brain model was made using a 3D-printed resin mold from patient-specific MRI data. The mold was filled with silicone Ecoflex (TM) 00-10 and mixed with Silc Pig((R)) pigment additives to replicate the color and consistency of brain tissue. The dura mater was made from quick-drying silicone paste admixed with gray dye. The blood vessels were made from a silicone 3D-printed mold based on magnetic resonance imaging. Liquid containing paprika oleoresin dye was used to simulate blood and was pumped through the vessels to simulate pulsatile motion. Results: Seven residents and eight senior neurosurgeons were recruited to test our model. The participants reported that the size and anatomy of the elements were very similar to real structures. The model was helpful for training neuroendoscopic 3D perception and navigation. Conclusions: We developed an endoscopic third ventriculostomy training model using 3D printing technology that provides anatomical precision and a realistic simulation. We hope our model can provide an indispensable tool for young neurosurgeons to gain operative experience without exposing patients to risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据