Usability Analysis in Surgical Prosthetics Application for Patient Specific Implants PSI

  • María José González
  • Clara Isabel López
  • Fernanda Maradei
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 607)

Abstract

Objective: Analyze and validate usability of three PSI alternatives by measuring criteria such as: efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction. Throughout analysis an alternative which offers the best solution to the case study was validated. Methods: An experiment was developed with 6 participants skilled in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Experts, using PSI and a prototyped skull corresponding with case study, simulated surgical pre-planning. Two of the PSI were designed by the project and one was commercial type. Results: It is evident that PSI alternatives, which were designed for case study were better valued compared with commercial alternative type one. This commercial-type alternative did not achieve expectations of participants in terms of surgical and usability. In addition, commercial alternative makes placement and fixation process more difficulty in the bone defect than proposed PSI. Conclusions: Usability validation was conducted in this study, allows identifying relevance of PSI design applied to cranioplasty procedures. Its relevance increases the possibility of successful surgery and postoperative procedures. It is necessary to perform future experiments in non-simulated surgical environments, where results might be more accurate.

Keywords

PSI Usability analysis Cranioplasty 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors are most grateful to the VIE of the Industrial University of Santander for their financial support for participation in the event.

References

  1. 1.
    Garcia, H., Reyes, D., Diegoperez, J., Mercado, A.: Traumatismo craneal en niños: frecuencia y algunas características epidemiológicas. Rev. Medigraphic 41, 495–501 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faillot, T.: Traumatismos craneales. EMC Tratado Med. 14(1), 1–6 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Losada, A.L.: Trauma craneoencefálico aspectos epidemiológicos y fisiopatológicos. Rev. Fac. Salud RFS 1(1), 63–76 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Osma, J.L.: Factores asociados a la severidad del trauma ocasionado por lesiones en motocicleta en el área metropolitana de Bucaramanga, pp. 14–18 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gander, T., et al.: Patient specific implants (PSI) in reconstruction of orbital floor and wall fractures. J. Cranio Maxillofac. Surg. 43(1), 126–130 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    López, C.I., Bravo, E., Moreno, J.C., Bautista, L.E.: Approach study to a model of integration technologies for ideation of customized implants. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 3(4), 323–328 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Afeez, A., Kumar, A.: Application of CAD and reverse engineering methodology for development of complex assemblies. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 11(3), 375–390 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bagaria, V., Deshpande, S., Rasalkar, D.D., Kuthe, A., Paunipagar, B.K.: Use of rapid prototyping and three-dimensional reconstruction modeling in the management of complex fractures. Eur. J. Radiol. 80(3), 814–820 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rotaru, H., et al.: Cranioplasty with custom-made implants: analyzing the cases of 10 patients. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 70(2), e169–e176 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Catapam, R., Okimoto, M., Paredes, M.: The use of reverse engineering development of cranial prosthesis for thermal spray, No. 68, pp. 647–656 (2013). Fed. Univ. ParanaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Essig, H., et al.: Precision of posttraumatic primary orbital reconstruction using individually bent titanium mesh with and without navigation: a retrospective study. Head Face Med. 9(1), 18 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maya, J., López, C.R., López, I., Sierra, A.: Metodologıa para la manufactura de implantes craneales a partir de imagenes DICOM y tecnologias CAD/CAM/CNC, pp. 53–66 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grille, P., et al.: Factores pronósticos en el traumatismo craneoencefálico grave del adulto. Rev. Bras. Ter. Intensiva XXXIII(1), 81–87 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pereira, E.A.C., Aziz, T.Z.: Cranioplasty: Plus Ca Change, Plus c’est la MEme Chose. World Neurosurg. 82(3–4), e433–e434 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brie, J., et al.: A new custom made bioceramic implant for the repair of large and complex craniofacial bone defects. J. Cranio Maxillofac. Surg. 41(5), 403–407 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schebesch, K.-M., Höhne, J., Gassner, H.G., Brawanski, A.: Preformed titanium cranioplasty after resection of skull base meningiomas - a technical note. J. Cranio Maxillofac. Surg. 41(8), 803–807 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chrzan, R., Urbanik, A., Karbowski, K., Moskała, M., Polak, J., Pyrich, M.: Cranioplasty prosthesis manufacturing based on reverse engineering technology. Med. Sci. Monit. 18(1), MT1–MT6 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    González de Santiago, M.A., Chaurand Lara, J., Sandoval, B.: Reconstrucción craneal con implante personalizado. Rev. Española Cirugía Oral y Maxilofac. 33(1), 40–44 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sahoo, N.K., Kumar, P., Rappai, T.J.: Growing skull fracture. Indian J. Dent. 4(1), 48–51 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dujovny, M., Aviles, A., Agner, C., Fernandez, P., Charbel, F.T.: Cranioplasty: cosmetic or therapeutic? Surg. Neurol. 47(3), 238–241 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mohlhenrich, S.C., Kniha, K., Heussen, N., Holzle, F., Modabber, A.: Effects on primary stability of three different techniques for implant site preparation in synthetic bone models of different densities. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 54(9), 1–7 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lethaus, B., Bloebaum, M., Essers, B., Ter Laak, M.P., Steiner, T., Kessler, P.: Patient-specific implants compared with stored bone grafts for patients with interval cranioplasty. J. Craniofac. Surg. 25(1), 206–209 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Biswas, S., Alarcón, G., Valentín, A.: Effects of metallic cranioplasty on electroencephalographic recordings: an illustrative case. Clin. Neurophysiol. 124(3), 626–627 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lethaus, B., Bloebaum, M., Koper, D., Poort-Ter Laak, M., Kessler, P.: Interval cranioplasty with patient-specific implants and autogenous bone grafts - Success and cost analysis. J. Cranio Maxillofac. Surg. 42(8), 1948–1951 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goh, R.C.W., Chang, C.-N., Lin, C.-L., Lo, L.-J.: Customised fabricated implants after previous failed cranioplasty. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 63(9), 1479–1484 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Casallo, C., Tantas, G., Pineda, R., Reporte de caso: Craneoplastía con implante de polieteretercetona diseñado por computadora. 27(3), 193–195 (2010) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roberto Soler, C.C., de Lima, J.: Implante craneano individual de gran volumen en polimetilmetacrilato de metilo a partir de un prototipo rápido. Reporte de un caso XIII, 26–36 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kemmoku, D.T., Noritomi, P.Y., Roland, F.G., Silva, J.V.L.: Use of BioCAD in the development of a growth compliant prosthetic device for cranioplasty of growing patients, pp. 127–130 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • María José González
    • 1
  • Clara Isabel López
    • 1
  • Fernanda Maradei
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Industrial DesignUniversity Industrial of SantanderBucaramangaColombia

Personalised recommendations