Development and validation of a cadaveric porcine Pseudotumor model for Oral Cancer biopsy and resection training.

OBJECTIVE: The gold standard of oral cancer (OC) treatment is diagnostic confirmation by biopsy followed by surgical treatment. However, studies have shown that dentists have difficulty performing biopsies, dental students lack knowledge about OC, and surgeons do not always maintain a safe margin during tumor resection. To address this, biopsies and resections could be trained under realistic conditions outside the patient. The aim of this study was to develop and to validate a porcine pseudotumor model of the tongue. METHODS: An interdisciplinary team reflecting various specialties involved in the oncological treatment of head and neck oncology developed a porcine pseudotumor model of the tongue in which biopsies and resections can be practiced. The refined model was validated in a final trial of 10 participants who each resected four pseudotumors on a tongue, resulting in a total of 40 resected pseudotumors. The participants (7 residents and 3 specialists) had an experience in OC treatment ranging from 0.5 to 27 years. Resection margins (minimum and maximum) were assessed macroscopically and compared beside self-assessed margins and resection time between residents and specialists. Furthermore, the model was evaluated using Likert-type questions on haptic and radiological fidelity, its usefulness as a training model, as well as its imageability using CT and ultrasound. RESULTS: The model haptically resembles OC (3.0 ± 0.5; 4-point Likert scale), can be visualized with medical imaging and macroscopically evaluated immediately after resection providing feedback. Although, participants (3.2 ± 0.4) tended to agree that they had resected the pseudotumor with an ideal safety margin (10 mm), the mean minimum resection margin was insufficient at 4.2 ± 1.2 mm (mean ± SD), comparable to reported margins in literature. Simultaneously, a maximum resection margin of 18.4 ± 6.1 mm was measured, indicating partial over-resection. Although specialists were faster at resection (p < 0.001), this had no effect on margins (p = 0.114). Overall, the model was well received by the participants, and they could see it being implemented in training (3.7 ± 0.5). CONCLUSION: The model, which is cost-effective, cryopreservable, and provides a risk-free training environment, is ideal for training in OC biopsy and resection and could be incorporated into dental, medical, or oncologic surgery curricula. Future studies should evaluate the long-term training effects using this model and its potential impact on improving patient outcomes.

Advantages of a Training Course for Surgical Planning in Virtual Reality for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: As an integral part of computer-assisted surgery, virtual surgical planning (VSP) leads to significantly better surgery results, such as for oral and maxillofacial reconstruction with microvascular grafts of the fibula or iliac crest. It is performed on a 2D computer desktop screen (DS) based on preoperative medical imaging. However, in this environment, VSP is associated with shortcomings, such as a time-consuming planning process and the requirement of a learning process. Therefore, a virtual reality (VR)-based VSP application has great potential to reduce or even overcome these shortcomings due to the benefits of visuospatial vision, bimanual interaction, and full immersion. However, the efficacy of such a VR environment has not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate the possible advantages of a VR environment through a substep of VSP, specifically the segmentation of the fibula (calf bone) and os coxae (hip bone), by conducting a training course in both DS and VR environments and comparing the results. METHODS: During the training course, 6 novices were taught how to use a software application in a DS environment (3D Slicer) and in a VR environment (Elucis) for the segmentation of the fibula and os coxae, and they were asked to carry out the maneuvers as accurately and quickly as possible. Overall, 13 fibula and 13 os coxae were segmented for each participant in both methods (VR and DS), resulting in 156 different models (78 fibula and 78 os coxae) per method (VR and DS) and 312 models in total. The individual learning processes in both environments were compared using objective criteria (time and segmentation performance) and self-reported questionnaires. The models resulting from the segmentation were compared mathematically (Hausdorff distance and Dice coefficient) and evaluated by 2 experienced radiologists in a blinded manner. RESULTS: A much faster learning curve was observed for the VR environment than the DS environment (ß=.86 vs ß=.25). This nearly doubled the segmentation speed (cm3/min) by the end of training, leading to a shorter time (P<.001) to reach a qualitative result. However, there was no qualitative difference between the models for VR and DS (P=.99). The VR environment was perceived by participants as more intuitive and less exhausting, and was favored over the DS environment. CONCLUSIONS: The more rapid learning process and the ability to work faster in the VR environment could save time and reduce the VSP workload, providing certain advantages over the DS environment.