Workflow assessment as a preclinical development tool: Surgical process models of three techniques for minimally invasive cochlear implantation

被引:4
|
作者
Mueller, Samuel [1 ]
Kahrs, Lueder A. [1 ]
Gaa, Johannes [1 ]
Tauscher, Sebastian [1 ]
Kluge, Marcel [2 ]
John, Samuel [2 ]
Rau, Thomas S. [2 ]
Lenarz, Thomas [2 ]
Ortmaier, Tobias [1 ]
Majdani, Omid [2 ]
机构
[1] Leibniz Univ Hannover, Inst Mechatron Syst, D-30167 Hannover, Germany
[2] Hannover Med Sch, Dept Otorhinolaryngol, D-30625 Hannover, Germany
关键词
Surgical process model; Minimally invasive surgery; Cochlear implant; Surgical robotics; System evaluation; PARALLEL ROBOT; SURGERY; TECHNOLOGY;
D O I
10.1007/s11548-019-02002-3
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
PurposeMinimally invasive cochlear implant surgery is a challenging procedure due to high demands on accuracy. For clinical success, an according assistance system has to compete against the traditional approach in terms of risk, operating time and cost. It has not yet been determined what kind of system is the most suited. The purpose of this study is a proof of concept of surgical process modeling as a preclinical development tool and the comparison of workflow concepts for this new approach.MethodsThree preclinical systems (two stereotactic and one robotic) for minimally invasive cochlear implant surgery are compared using the method of surgical process modeling. All three systems were successfully tested with ex vivo human specimen to create minimally invasive surgical access to the cochlea. Those systems where chosen for comparison, because they represent three diverse approaches with different corresponding workflows for the same intervention. The experiments were used to create a process model for each system by recording the interventions.ResultsAll three conceptual systems developed by our group have shown their eligibility. The recorded process models provide a convenient method for direct comparison. Reduction in the surgical time has a higher impact on the process, than time that is needed for setting up a system beforehand. The stereotactic approaches have little preparation effort and are low cost in terms of hardware compared to the robotic approach, which in return is beneficial in terms of workload reduction for the surgeon.ConclusionSurgical process modeling is suitable for comparison of different assistant systems for minimally invasive cochlear implantation. The benefit of reduced trauma, compared to the traditional mastoidectomy, can now be assessed with consideration of the workflow of each technique. The process models enable an assessment in the regard of surgical time and workload.
引用
收藏
页码:1389 / 1401
页数:13
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] Workflow assessment as a preclinical development toolSurgical process models of three techniques for minimally invasive cochlear implantation
    Samuel Müller
    Lüder A. Kahrs
    Johannes Gaa
    Sebastian Tauscher
    Marcel Kluge
    Samuel John
    Thomas S. Rau
    Thomas Lenarz
    Tobias Ortmaier
    Omid Majdani
    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2019, 14 : 1389 - 1401
  • [2] Minimally Invasive Cochlear Implantation with Mastoidal Three-Layer Flap Technique
    Ulug, Tuncay
    Teker, Aysenur Meric
    ORL-JOURNAL FOR OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY AND ITS RELATED SPECIALTIES, 2009, 71 (05): : 292 - 298
  • [3] Atraumatic surgery with three-layer flap minimally invasive cochlear implantation
    Tuncay, Ulug
    10TH EUROPEAN SYMPOSIUM ON PAEDIATRIC COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION, 2011, : 69 - 76
  • [4] Minimally invasive surgical techniques in vestibular function preservation in patients with cochlear implants
    Wang, Ruijie
    Luo, Jianfen
    Chao, Xiuhua
    Wang, Haibo
    Fan, Zhaomin
    Xu, Lei
    FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE, 2022, 16
  • [5] Application of bonebed-malleus short process registration in minimally invasive cochlear implantation
    Ke, Jia
    Zhang, Shaoxing
    Li, Changsheng
    Zhu, Yunfeng
    Hu, Lei
    Ma, Furong
    Computer Assisted Surgery, 2016, 21 : 30 - 36
  • [6] Phantom-based evaluation method for surgical assistance devices in minimally invasive cochlear implantation
    Lexow, G. Jakob
    Kluge, Marcel
    Majdani, Omid
    Lenarz, Thomas
    Rau, Thomas S.
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2017: IMAGE-GUIDED PROCEDURES, ROBOTIC INTERVENTIONS, AND MODELING, 2017, 10135
  • [7] Development of a surgical guide for minimally invasive corticotomies with a complete digital intraoral and laboratory workflow
    Paris, Marion
    Nurdin, Nathalie
    Manzano, Guillermo
    Caroleo, Francesca
    Messaoudi, Yassine
    Bischof, Mark
    Nedir, Rabah
    Coachman, Christian
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERIZED DENTISTRY, 2020, 23 (03) : 257 - 267
  • [8] A Manually Operated, Advance Off-Stylet Insertion Tool for Minimally Invasive Cochlear Implantation Surgery
    Kratchman, Louis B.
    Schurzig, Daniel
    McRackan, Theodore R.
    Balachandran, Ramya
    Noble, Jack H.
    Webster, Robert J., III
    Labadie, Robert F.
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2012, 59 (10) : 2792 - 2800
  • [9] Preservation of residual hearing following cochlear implantation: comparison between three surgical techniques
    Berrettini, S.
    Forli, F.
    Passetti, S.
    JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY, 2008, 122 (03): : 246 - 252
  • [10] Development of a surgical competency assessment tool for sentinel lymph node dissection by minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer
    Moloney, Kristen
    Janda, Monika
    Frumovitz, Michael
    Leitao, Mario
    Abu-Rustum, Nadeem R.
    Rossi, Emma
    Nicklin, James L.
    Plante, Marie
    Lecuru, Fabrice R.
    Buda, Alessandro
    Mariani, Andrea
    Leung, Yee
    Ferguson, Sarah Elizabeth
    Pareja, Rene
    Kimmig, Rainer
    Tong, Pearl Shuang Ye
    McNally, Orla
    Chetty, Naven
    Liu, Kaijiang
    Jaaback, Ken
    Lau, Julio
    Ng, Soon Yau Joseph
    Falconer, Henrik
    Persson, Jan
    Land, Russell
    Martinelli, Fabio
    Garrett, Andrea
    Altman, Alon
    Pendlebury, Adam
    Cibula, David
    Altamirano, Roberto
    Brennan, Donal
    Ind, Thomas Edward
    De Kroon, Cornelis
    Tse, Ka Yu
    Hanna, George
    Obermair, Andreas
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2021, 31 (05) : 647 - 655