Development, specification and evaluation of a work table, suitable for VDU work with a mouse, was carried out in collaboration with furniture manufacturers, employees and an employer in a Research and Development Company. Ten VDU-operators expressed their ideas for improvements at their present wor
Patient-specific simulation for endovascular procedures: qualitative evaluation of the development process
✍ Scribed by W. I. M. Willaert; R. Aggarwal; D. F. Nestel; P. A. Gaines; F. E. Vermassen; A. W. Darzi; N. J. Cheshire
- Publisher
- Wiley (Robotic Publications)
- Year
- 2010
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 666 KB
- Volume
- 6
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1478-5951
- DOI
- 10.1002/rcs.307
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
Background
Recent advancements in simulation permit patient‐specific rehearsal of carotid artery stenting procedures. This study evaluates the feasibility of transferring patient‐specific CT data into the simulator, creating a 3D reconstruction and performing a rehearsal. The face validity of the model was assessed.
Methods/Results
By thematic analysis of qualitative data, an algorithm was generated, focusing on simulation set‐up, time of data transfer, software/compatibility issues and problem‐solving strategies. The face validity of the simulated case was evaluated by 15 expert interventionalists: realism (median 4/5), training potential (median 4/5) and pre‐procedure rehearsal potential for challenging CAS cases (median 4/5) were rated highly.
Conclusions
Setting up a procedure rehearsal is feasible and reproducible for different patients in different hospital settings without major software compatibility issues. The time to create a 3D reconstruction of patient‐specific CT data is a major factor in the total time necessary to set up a rehearsal. The face validity is highly rated by experts. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract ## Background The aim of this study was to develop and validate the first ever speech‐specific perceptual speech‐evaluation tool for patients with head and neck cancer. ## Methods Five speech parameters (intelligibility, articulation, speech rate, nasality, and asthenia) and overall