Evaluating the Didactic Value of 3D Visualization in Otosurgery

Overview

Journal Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2020 Jul 3

PMID 32613353

Citations 9

Authors

Nora M Weiss

Armin Schneider

John M Hempel

Florian C Uecker

Sara M van Bonn

Sebastian P Schraven

Stefanie Rettschlag

Tobias Schuldt

Joachim Muller

Stefan K Plontke

Robert Mlynski

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Improvements of surgical visualization add value to the quality of clinical routine and offer the opportunity to improve surgical education of medical staff. The aim of this study was to determine whether otorhinolaryngology trainees gain additional comprehension of the anatomical structures and the surgical site when 3D visualization is used.

Methods: Data were collected from ENT trainees of microsurgical courses of the middle ear, inner ear and lateral skull base at four university ENT departments (Charité (Berlin), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Halle/Saale), Ludwig Maximilian University (Munich) and Rostock University Medical Center). Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing the subjective value of identical surgical field visualization in 3D for surgeon and observer.

Results: A total of 112 participants completed the questionnaire. The majority of participants stated a high additional value of 3D visualization compared to 2D visualization, with 75% fully agreeing to the statement that 3D visualization of the surgical field is superior to perceive the anatomical topography and structures compared to 2D representation. Participants encouraged the storage of data in online learning platforms.

Conclusion: The results show that 3D visualization with identical imaging for surgeon and observer is a useful tool in teaching of microsurgery. It addresses perception of anatomical topography and structures as well as conception of the surgical workflow.

Citing Articles

[Interactive electronic visualization formats in student teaching].

van Bonn S, Grajek J, Rettschlag S, Schraven S, Mlynski R HNO. 2024; 72(5):341-349.

PMID: 38393668 PMC: 11045576. DOI: 10.1007/s00106-024-01436-9.

[Multidimensional formats of surgical anatomy in otorhinolaryngology student teaching-a comparison of effectivity].

Grajek J, Rettschlag S, Schneider A, Schraven S, Mlynski R, van Bonn S HNO. 2024; 72(5):357-366.

PMID: 38324064 PMC: 11045569. DOI: 10.1007/s00106-024-01427-w.

Effect of teaching tools in spatial understanding in health science education: a systematic review.

Sharmin N, Chow A, King S Can Med Educ J. 2023; 14(4):70-88.

PMID: 37719412 PMC: 10500399. DOI: 10.36834/cmej.74978.

Telepresence for surgical assistance and training using eXtended reality during and after pandemic periods.

Wisotzky E, Rosenthal J, Meij S, van den Dobblesteen J, Arens P, Hilsmann A J Telemed Telecare. 2023; 31(1):14-28.

PMID: 37093788 PMC: 11626847. DOI: 10.1177/1357633X231166226.

Accessing the stapedius muscle via novel surgical retrofacial approach during cochlear implantation surgery: Intraoperative results on feasibility and safety.

Guntinas-Lichius O, Arnold D, Volk G, Korth D, Aschenbach R, Hempel J PLoS One. 2022; 17(8):e0272943.

PMID: 35951500 PMC: 9371293. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272943.

References

Sieber D, Erfurt P, John S, Ribeiro Dos Santos G, Schurzig D, Sorensen M . The OpenEar library of 3D models of the human temporal bone based on computed tomography and micro-slicing. Sci Data. 2019; 6:180297. PMC: 6326113. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2018.297. View

Stanford W, Erkonen W, Cassell M, Moran B, Easley G, Carris R . Evaluation of a computer-based program for teaching cardiac anatomy. Invest Radiol. 1994; 29(2):248-52. DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199402000-00022. View

Cook D, Levinson A, Garside S, Dupras D, Erwin P, Montori V . Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008; 300(10):1181-96. DOI: 10.1001/jama.300.10.1181. View

Kyaw B, Posadzki P, Dunleavy G, Semwal M, Divakar U, Hervatis V . Offline Digital Education for Medical Students: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21(3):e13165. PMC: 6452290. DOI: 10.2196/13165. View

de Leng B, Dolmans D, Muijtjens A, van der Vleuten C . Student perceptions of a virtual learning environment for a problem-based learning undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Educ. 2006; 40(6):568-75. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02484.x. View

Chhaya N, Helmy O, Piri N, Palacio A, Schaal S . COMPARISON OF 2D AND 3D VIDEO DISPLAYS FOR TEACHING VITREORETINAL SURGERY. Retina. 2017; 38(8):1556-1561. DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001743. View

de Boer I, Wesselink P, Vervoorn J . Student performance and appreciation using 3D vs. 2D vision in a virtual learning environment. Eur J Dent Educ. 2015; 20(3):142-7. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12152. View

Chou P, Hallac R, Shih E, Trieu J, Penumatcha A, Das P . 3D-Printed Models of Cleft Lip and Palate for Surgical Training and Patient Education. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018; 55(3):323-327. DOI: 10.1177/1055665617738998. View

Kleinert R, Wahba R, Chang D, Plum P, Holscher A, Stippel D . 3D immersive patient simulators and their impact on learning success: a thematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(4):e91. PMC: 4407019. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3492. View

10.

Barber S, Kozin E, Naunheim M, Sethi R, Remenschneider A, Deschler D . 3D-printed tracheoesophageal puncture and prosthesis placement simulator. Am J Otolaryngol. 2017; 39(1):37-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.08.001. View

11.

Messier E, Wilcox J, Dawson-Elli A, Diaz G, Linte C . An Interactive 3D Virtual Anatomy Puzzle for Learning and Simulation - Initial Demonstration and Evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016; 220:233-40. View

12.

Reymus M, Fotiadou C, Kessler A, Heck K, Hickel R, Diegritz C . 3D printed replicas for endodontic education. Int Endod J. 2018; 52(1):123-130. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12964. View

13.

Wang J, Yuan Z, Qian G, Bao W, Jin G . 3D printing of intracranial aneurysm based on intracranial digital subtraction angiography and its clinical application. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97(24):e11103. PMC: 6023659. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011103. View

14.

Roosli C, Sim J, Mockel H, Mokosch M, Probst R . An artificial temporal bone as a training tool for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2013; 34(6):1048-51. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31828f4907. View

15.

Gonzalez Izard S, Juanes J, Garcia Penalvo F, Estella J, Ledesma M, Ruisoto P . Virtual Reality as an Educational and Training Tool for Medicine. J Med Syst. 2018; 42(3):50. DOI: 10.1007/s10916-018-0900-2. View

16.

van Mierlo C, Brenner E, Smeets J . Better performance with two eyes than with one in stereo-blind subjects' judgments of motion in depth. Vision Res. 2011; 51(11):1249-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.03.015. View

17.

Shabli S, Heuermann K, Leffers D, Kriesche F, Abrams N, Yilmaz M . [Survey on the need for an e-learning-platform for ENT residents]. Laryngorhinootologie. 2019; 98(12):869-876. DOI: 10.1055/a-1025-2024. View

18.

Nibourg L, Wanders W, Cornelissen F, Koopmans S . Influence of stereoscopic vision on task performance with an operating microscope. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41(9):1919-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.12.066. View

19.

Lau F, Bates J . A review of e-learning practices for undergraduate medical education. J Med Syst. 2004; 28(1):71-87. DOI: 10.1023/b:joms.0000021522.30587.ff. View

20.

Chumley-Jones H, Dobbie A, Alford C . Web-based learning: sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature. Acad Med. 2002; 77(10 Suppl):S86-93. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200210001-00028. View