4.4 Review

A review of virtual reality based training simulators for orthopaedic surgery

期刊

MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 59-71

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.11.021

关键词

Orthopaedic; Hip replacement; Resurfacing; Simulator; Haptics; Modelling

资金

  1. Wessex Academic Health Science Network (Wessex AHSN) Innovation and Wealth Creation Accelerator Fund
  2. Bournemouth University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review presents current virtual reality based training simulators for hip, knee and other orthopaedic surgery, including elective and trauma surgical procedures. There have not been any reviews focussing on hip and knee orthopaedic simulators. A comparison of existing simulator features is provided to identify what is missing and what is required to improve upon current simulators. In total 11 hip replacements pre-operative planning tools were analysed, plus 9 hip trauma fracture training simulators. Additionally 9 knee arthroscopy simulators and 8 other orthopaedic simulators were included for comparison. The findings are that for orthopaedic surgery simulators in general, there is increasing use of patient-specific virtual models which reduce the learning curve. Modelling is also being used for patient-specific implant design and manufacture. Simulators are being increasingly validated for assessment as well as training. There are very few training simulators available for hip replacement, yet more advanced virtual reality is being used for other procedures such as hip trauma and drilling. Training simulators for hip replacement and orthopaedic surgery in general lag behind other surgical procedures for which virtual reality has become more common. Further developments are required to bring hip replacement training simulation up to date with other procedures. This suggests there is a gap in the market for a new high fidelity hip replacement and resurfacing training simulator. (C) 2015 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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