Simulation based education has been shown to increase the task-specific capability of medical trainees. Transesophageal echocardiography training greatly benefits from the use of simulators. They allow real time scanning of a beating heart and generation of ultrasound images side by side with anatomically accurate virtual model. These simulators are costly and have many limitations. 3D printing technologies have enabled the creation of bespoke phantoms capable of being used as task-trainers. This study aims to compare the ease of use and accuracy of a low-cost patient-specific, Computer-tomography based, 3D printed, echogenic TEE phantom compared to a commercially available echocardiography training mannequin.
We hypothesized that a low-cost, 3D printed custom-made, cardiac phantom has comparable image quality, accuracy and usability as existing commercially available echocardiographic phantoms.
After Institutional Ethic Research Board approval, we recruited ten American Board – Certified cardiac anesthesiologists and conducted a blinded comparative study divided into two stages. Stage one consisted of image assessment. A set of basic TEE views obtained from the 3D printed and commercial phantom were presented to the participants on a computer screen in random order. For each image, participants will be asked to identify the view, identify the quality of the image on a 1-5 Likert scale compared to the corresponding human view and guess with which phantom it was acquired (1 not at all realistic to patients view and 5 realistic to patients view). Stage two, participants will be asked to use the 3D printed and the commercially available phantom to obtain basic TEE views. In a maximum of 30 minutes. Each view was recorded and assessed for accuracy by two certified echocardiographers. Time needed to acquire each basic view and number of correct views was recorded. Overall usability of the phantoms was assessed through a questionnaire. For all continuous variables, we will calculate mean, median and standard deviation. We use Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test to assess significant differences in the rating of each phantom.
All ten participants completed all part of the study. All participants could recognize all of the standard views. The average Likert scale was 3.2 for the 3D printed and 2.9 for the commercial Phantom with no significant difference. The average time to obtain views was 24.5 and 30 sec for the 3D printed and the commercial phantoms respectively statistically significantly in favor of the 3D printed phantom. The qualitative user assessment for ease to obtain the views, probe manipulation, image quality and overall experience were in great favor of the 3D printed phantom.
Our Study suggest that the quality of TEE images obtained on the 3D printed phantom are not significantly different from those obtained on the commercial Phantom. The ease of use and time required to complete a basic TEE exam were in favor of the 3D Printed phantom.:Table of Content
1. Bibliographic Description 3
2. Introduction 4
2.1. Perioperative transesophageal echocardiography 4
2.2. Transesophageal echocardiography training 5
2.3. Transesophageal echocardiography simulation 6
2.4. 3D Heart Printing 13
2.5. 3D Segmentation 16
2.6. Development of the study phantom 17
2.7. Study Rationale 18
3. Publication 22
4. Summary 30
5. References 33
6. Appendices 37
6.1. Darstellung des eigenes Beitrags 38
6.2. Erklärung über die eigenständige Abfassung der Arbeit 39
6.3. Lebenslauf 40
6.4. Publikationen und Vorträge 44
6.5. Danksagung 61
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:DRESDEN/oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:76393 |
| Date | 02 November 2021 |
| Creators | Meineri, Massimiliano |
| Contributors | Universität Leipzig |
| Source Sets | Hochschulschriftenserver (HSSS) der SLUB Dresden |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/updatedVersion, doc-type:doctoralThesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis, doc-type:Text |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0775 seconds