ArticleJournal of medical systems2025
Development and Validation of a Neurosurgical Phantom for Simulating External Ventricular Drain Placement.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing augmented reality-assisted and freehand external ventricular drain placement: a multicenter randomized controlled crossover phantom study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Trial
- Surgeon perceptions of essential skills and simulation for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy training.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to develop and validate a cost-effective, customizable patient-specific phantom for simulating external ventricular drain placement, combining image segmentation, 3-D printing and molding techniques. Two variations of the phantom were created based on patient MRI data, integrating a realistic skin layer with anatomical landmarks, a 3-D printed skull, an agarose polysaccharide gel brain, and a ventricular cavity. To validate the phantom, 15 neurosurgeons, residents, and physician assistants performed 30 EVD placements. The effectiveness of the phantom as a training tool was assessed through a standardized user experience questionnaire, which evaluated the physical attributes, realism, and overall satisfaction. The mechanical properties of the phantom brain were quantified by measuring catheter insertion forces using a linear force tester to compare them to those experienced in real brain tissue. The study participants successfully completed EVD placements with a 76.7% optimal placement rate, which aligns with rates observed in clinical practice. Feedback highlighted the anatomical accuracy of the phantom and its value in enhancing surgical skills, though it also identified areas for improvement, particularly in the realism of the skin layer. Mechanical testing demonstrated that the insertion forces required were comparable to those encountered in actual brain tissue. The developed phantom offers a realistic, low-cost, and adaptable model for EVD simulation. This tool is particularly beneficial for both training and research, with future enhancements planned to improve the realism of the skin and incorporate more anatomical features to increase the fidelity of the simulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.