Balazova K, Belakova P, Snehota M, Trneckova M, Vachutka J, Salzman R. Comparison of capabilities and limitations of endoscopes in endoscopic ear surgeries using 3D printed models.
Am J Otolaryngol 2024;
45:104226. [PMID:
38295450 DOI:
10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104226]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 01/21/2024] [Indexed: 02/02/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE
Endoscopic ear surgery has become a popular operative approach to treat middle ear diseases. Surgeons use either 0° or 30° endoscopes worldwide. The main aim of the work was to compare the properties of these two types of endoscopes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Since this type of evaluation is hard to perform in vivo during the actual surgery, we designed 3D printed temporal bone models with different levels of complexity. The evaluation of endoscopes was based on image analysis or visibility of anatomical structures.
RESULTS
The results show that a 30° endoscope offers a view of lateral walls from 4 mm distance, contrary to a 0° endoscope which cannot see lateral walls from this distance at all. On the other hand, visible area of the anterior wall is up to 40 % larger using 0° endoscope, compared to 30° endoscope. Angled endoscope distorts the picture and leads to the deterioration of the image. At commonly used distances above 5 mm from middle ear structures, resolution and image distortion is comparable between both endoscopes.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results do not offer a definitive opinion on which endoscope is better for ear surgery. Both types of endoscopes have advantages and disadvantages, and the choice depends on the surgeon's personal preference and on the type of planned procedure.
Collapse