Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Pediatric Division, University of Michigan Health Systems, CS Mott Children’s Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

Search for more papers by this author

David A Zopf

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +1 734 936 4934;

E-mail Address: davidzop@med.umich.edu

Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Pediatric Division, University of Michigan Health Systems, CS Mott Children’s Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:3 Mar 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/3dp-2021-0027

View article

Abstract

Aim: Orofacial clefts are prevalent with limited access to surgical correction. To address this issue our objective was to create a low-cost, high-fidelity, 3D-printed Veau class II cleft palate surgical simulator. Materials & methods: A 3D-printed Veau class II cleft palate simulator was designed using de-identified computed tomography data and computer aided design software. The simulator then underwent multi-institutional expert otolaryngologist validation. Results: The Veau class II cleft palate simulator was rated on a scale of 1–5; 3.8 as a training tool, 4.20 as a competency evaluation tool and 4.20 as a rehearsal tool. The simulator was also rated as very relevant (4.20) and very useful (4.60). Conclusion: The low-cost, high-fidelity Veau II cleft palate simulator was rated highly for physical attributes, realism, performance and usefulness.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Mossey PA, Catilla EE. Global registry and database on craniofacial anomalies: report of a WHO registry meeting on craniofacial anomalies. World Health Organization, France (2003).
Google Scholar
2. Burg M, Chai Y, Yao C, Magee W, Figueiredo J. Epidemiology, etiology, and treatment of isolated cleft palate. Front. Physiol. 7, 67 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Prevalence of cleft lip and cleft palate. CDC and Prevention National Birth Defects Prevention Network (2018). https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/data-statistics/craniofacial-birth-defects/prevalence
Google Scholar
4. Allori A, Mulliken J, Meara J, Shusterman S, Marcus J. Classification of cleft lip/palate: then and now. Cleft Palate – Cran. J. 54 (2), 175–188 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Shkoukani MA, Lawrence LA, Liebertx DJ, Svider PF. Cleft palate: a clinical review. Wiley Periodicals 102(4), 333–342 (2014).
CASGoogle Scholar
6. Abdurrazaq T, Micheal A, Lanre A, Olugbenga O, Akin L. Surgical outcome and complications following cleft lip and palate repair in a teaching hospital in Nigeria. Afr. J. Paediatric Surg. 10(4), 345–357 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Adesina OA, Efunkoya AA, Omeje KU, Idon PI. Postoperative complications from primary repair of cleft lip and palate in a semi-urban Nigerian teaching hospital. Nigerian Med. J. 57(3), 155–159 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Cote V, Schwartz M, Arbouin Vargas JF et al. 3-Dimensional printed haptic simulation model to teach incomplete cleft palate surgery in an international setting. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhi. 113, 292–297 (2018). •• Report published on a low-cost, high-fidelity simulator created using 3D printing, who’s success we hope to build on with our published report.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Alkire B, Hughes C, Nash K, Vincent J, Meara J. Potential economic benefit of cleft lip and palate repair in sub-Saharan Africa. World J. Surg. 35, 1194–1201 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Lioufas PA, Quayle MR, Leong JC, McMenamin PG. 3D printed models of cleft palate pathology for surgical education. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Global Open 4(9), e1029 (2016). • Report published on prior high-fidelity surgical simulator and discussion of using computed tomography versus MRI imaging data for segmentation.
Google Scholar
11. Kantar RS, Alfonso AS, Ramly EP et al. Simulation in cleft surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Global Open 7(9), e2438 (2019). •• Review discussing both low-fidelity and high-fidelity simulators previously created.
Google Scholar
12. Artino AR Jr, La Rochelle JS, Dezee KJ, Gehlbach H. Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE guide no. 87. Med. Teach. 36(6), 463–474 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Powell AR, Srinivasan S, Green G, Kim J, Zopf DA. Computer-aided design, 3D-printed manufacturing, and expert validation of a high-fidelity facial flap surgical simulator. JAMA Facial Plast. Surg. 21(4), 327–331 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Treatstock. Treatstock - Projet-4500. Treatstock 3D printing services (2021). https://www.treatstock.com/machines/item/108-projet-4500
Google Scholar

Vol. 6, No. 2

Metrics

Downloaded 43 times

History

Received 21 August 2021

Accepted 21 February 2022

Published online 3 March 2022

Published in print June 2022

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the development of the simulator, RE Michaels and CA Witsberger completed the entirety of the expert validation. All authors were active participants in the writing and editing of the article.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

DA Zopf is a co-founder of MakeMedical, LLC. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download