Page 274 - IJB-9-1

International Journal of Bioprinting Evaluation of advanced visual computing solutions for the left atrial appendage occlusion

most and less experienced, respectively). The participants technologies passed the acceptability and user-friendliness
work in three different hospitals, with two of them using threshold (as defined in Bangor et al. ).
[40]
CT images for LAAO planning while US imaging is the The web-based VIDAA platform was the best
choice in the remaining clinical center. technology, according to the participants, with an average
None of the participants have taken part in the score of 78.13 and two physicians considering it excellent
development of VIDAA, VRIDAA, or Ansys Discovery (scores above 85). Interestingly, based on Table 2, the
Live. However, one participant (P6) helped on the 3D imaging cardiologists valued VIDAA more (average of
printing process but being blind to critical data in the 85.87) than the interventional cardiologists (average of
study (i.e., which device was implanted, clinical output). 70.4) did, although the latter still labeled the technology
Most participants (5/6) were familiar with 3D printing, as within the marginal high range of acceptability and user-
they have tested it before. Moreover, only one participant friendliness. The strongest points of the VIDAA platform,
did not know about the use of any of these technologies based on the SUS questions, were that it was easy to use
for LAAO planning, while only one knew about all of and fast to learn without any support, with all participants
them. Not a single participant had tested the VIDAA and agreeing on their willingness to use VIDAA frequently. On
VRIDAA platforms before the practical session and only the other hand, the participants found that there were too
two physicians had some experience with fluid simulations many features and steps in the platform, which could be
beforehand, although not with the Ansys Discovery Live simplified, to perform the final LAAO planning.
software. 3D printing was the second most valued technology
(score of 73.3, i.e., within the acceptable range of usability),
3.2. SUS questionnaire with good marks on easiness of usability and complexity.
The results of the SUS questionnaire are summarized in However, it failed on the confidence of use, consistency of
Table 2 and Figure 6. Overall, all the evaluated computing the system, and a proper integration of all features.

Figure 6. Overall results of the SUS questionnaire. Acceptable ranges were extracted from Bangor et al. . Error bars show the standard deviation.
[40]
Table 2. SUS score for each technology and participant

Participant VIDAA VRIDAA 3D printing Simulations
P1 (I) 88.0* 70.4 72.0 51.2
P2 (IC) 72.0* 62.4 64.0 70.4
P3 (IC) 67.2* 59.2 64.0 28.8
P4 (IC) 72.0 80.0* 78.4 73.6
P5 (I) 80.0* 62.4 68.8 48.0
P6 (I) 89.6* 75.2 92.8* 77.6
Mean (STD) 78.13 (9.24) 62.2 (8.26) 73.33 (10.96) 58.27 (18.87)
I: Imaging cardiologists; IC: Interventional cardiologists. *The best computing technology according to each participant

Volume 9 Issue 1 (2023) 266 https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v9i1.640