Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 156, Issue 6, pp 1237–1243 | Cite as

A neurosurgical phantom-based training system with ultrasound simulation

  • Andrea Müns
  • Constanze Mühl
  • Robert Haase
  • Hendrik Möckel
  • Claire Chalopin
  • Jürgen Meixensberger
  • Dirk Lindner
Technical Note - Neurosurgery Training

Abstract

Background

Brain tumor surgeries are associated with a high technical and personal effort. The required interactions between the surgeon and the technical components, such as neuronavigation, surgical instruments and intraoperative imaging, are complex and demand innovative training solutions and standardized evaluation methods. Phantom-based training systems could be useful in complementing the existing surgical education and training.

Methods

A prototype of a phantom-based training system was developed, intended for standardized training of important aspects of brain tumor surgery based on real patient data. The head phantom consists of a three-part construction that includes a reusable base and adapter, as well as a changeable module for single use. Training covers surgical planning of the optimal access path, the setup of the navigation system including the registration of the head phantom, as well as the navigated craniotomy with real instruments. Tracked instruments during the simulation and predefined access paths constitute the basis for the essential objective training feedback.

Results

The prototype was evaluated in a pilot study by assistant physicians at different education levels. They performed a complete simulation and a final assessment using an evaluation questionnaire. The analysis of the questionnaire showed the evaluation result as “good” for the phantom construction and the used materials. The learning effect concerning the navigated planning was evaluated as “very good”, as well as having the effect of increasing safety for the surgeon before planning and conducting craniotomies independently on patients.

Conclusions

The training system represents a promising approach for the future training of neurosurgeons. It aims to improve surgical skill training by creating a more realistic simulation in a non-risk environment. Hence, it could help to bridge the gap between theoretical and practical training with the potential to benefit both physicians and patients.

Keywords

Neurosurgical training Head phantom Tumor resection Ultrasound simulation Ultrasound phantom 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The described project was co-financed by the European Union under the European Regional Development Fund (EFRE, project number 14220/2466), while PHACON GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) was involved as a project partner. All authors declare no financial or personal conflict of interest regarding the material discussed in the article.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2005) Organising a surgical skills centre. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 14(4):275–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alaraj A, Charbel FT, Birk D, Tobin M, Luciano C, Banerjee PP, Rizzi S, Sorenson J, Foley K, Slavin K, Roitberg B (2013) Role of cranial and spinal virtual and augmented reality simulation using immersive touch modules in neurosurgical training. Neurosurgery 72(l):A115–A123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alaraj A, Lemole MG, Finkle JH, Yudkowsky R, Wallace A, Luciano C, Banerjee PP, Rizzi SH, Charbel FT (2011) Virtual reality training in neurosurgery: review of current status and future applications. Surg Neurol Int 2:52PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernardo A, Preul MC, Zabramski JM, Spetzler RF (2003) A three-dimensional interactive virtual dissection model to simulate transpetrous surgical avenues. Neurosurgery 52(3):499–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Csókay A, Papp A, Imreh D, Czabajszky M, Valálik I, Antalfi B (2013) Modelling pathology from autolog fresh cadaver organs as a novel concept in neurosurgical training. Acta Neurochir PMID: 23624637Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans AC, Janke AL, Collins DL, Baillet S (2012) Brain templates and atlases. Neuroimage 62(2):911–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TEJ, Woolrich MW, Smith SM (2011) Fsl. Neuroimage 62(2):782–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kockro RA, Serra L, Tseng-Tsai Y, Chan C, Yih-Yian S, Gim-Guan C, Lee E, Hoe LY, Hern N, Nowinski WL (2000) Planning and simulation of neurosurgery in a virtual reality environment. Neurosurgery 46(1):118–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kockro RA, Stadie A, Schwandt E, Reisch R, Charalampaki C, Ng I, Yeo TT, Hwang P, Serra L, Perneczky A (2007) A collaborative virtual reality environment for neurosurgical planning and training. Neurosurgery 61(5 Suppl 2):379–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lemole GM Jr, Banerjee PP, Luciano C, Neckrysh S, Charbel FT (2007) Virtual reality in neurosurgical education: part-task ventriculostomy simulation with dynamic visual and haptic feedback. Neurosurgery 61(1):142–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luciano C, Banerjee P, Lemole GM Jr, Charbel F (2006) Second generation haptic ventriculostomy simulator using the immersivetouch system. Stud Health Technol Inf 119:343–348Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malone HR, Syed ON, Downes MS, D'Ambrosio AL, Quest DO, Kaiser MG (2010) Simulation in neurosurgery: a review of computer-based simulation environments and their surgical applications. Neurosurgery 67(4):1105–1116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radetzky A, Rudolph M (2001) Simulating tumour removal in neurosurgery. Int J Med Inform 64:461–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Radetzky A, Rudolph M, Starkie S, Davies B, Auer LM (2000) Robo-sim: a simulator for minimally invasive neurosurgery using an active manipulator. Stud Health Technol Inf 77:1165–1169Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Radetzky A, Schröcker F, Auer LM (2000) Improvement of surgical simulation using dynamic volume rendering. Stud Health Technol Inf 70:272–278Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robison RA, Liu CY, Apuzzo ML (2011) Man, mind, and machine: the past and future of virtual reality simulation in neurologic surgery. World Neurosurg 76(5):419–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roser F, Pfister G, Tatagiba M, Ebner FH (2013) Live surgery in neurosurgical training courses: essential infrastructure and technical set-up. Acta Neurochir. doi: 10.1007/s00701-012-1578-8 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sato D, Kobayashi R, Kobayashi A, Fujino S, Uchiyama M (2006) Soft tissue pushing operation using a haptic interface for simulation of brain tumor resection. J Robot Mechatron 18(5):634–642Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spicer MA, van Velsen MV, Caffrey JP, Apuzzo ML (2004) Virtual reality neurosurgery: a simulator blueprint. Neurosurgery 54(4):783–797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stredney D, Wiet GJ, Bryan J, Sessanna D, Murakami J, Schmalbrock P, Powell K, Welling B (2002) Temporal bone dissection simulation—an update. Stud Health Technol Inf 85:507–513Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Müns
    • 1
  • Constanze Mühl
    • 1
  • Robert Haase
    • 2
  • Hendrik Möckel
    • 2
  • Claire Chalopin
    • 3
  • Jürgen Meixensberger
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dirk Lindner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.PHACON GmbHLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.ICCASUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations