Assessing the feasibility of handheld scanning technologies in neonatal intensive care: Trueness, acceptability, and suitability for personalised medical devices

Deanne August; Isabel Byram; David Forrestal; Mathilde Desselle; Nathan Stevenson; Kartik Iyer; Mark W Davies; Katherine White; Linda Cobbald; Lynette Chapple; Kellie McGrory; Margaret McLean; Stephanie Hall; Brittany Schoenmaker; Jackie Clement; Melissa M Lai

doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2024.09.012

Assessing the feasibility of handheld scanning technologies in neonatal intensive care: Trueness, acceptability, and suitability for personalised medical devices

Aust Crit Care. 2024 Dec 10:101127. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2024.09.012. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Deanne August¹, Isabel Byram², David Forrestal³, Mathilde Desselle⁴, Nathan Stevenson⁵, Kartik Iyer⁶, Mark W Davies⁷, Katherine White⁸, Linda Cobbald⁹, Lynette Chapple¹⁰, Kellie McGrory¹¹, Margaret McLean¹², Stephanie Hall¹³, Brittany Schoenmaker¹⁴, Jackie Clement¹⁵, Melissa M Lai¹⁶

Affiliations

¹ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
² Herston Biofabrication Institute, Metro North Health, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
³ Herston Biofabrication Institute, Metro North Health, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
⁴ Herston Biofabrication Institute, Metro North Health, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
⁵ Brain Modelling Group, Queensland Institute of Medical Research Berghofer, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
⁶ Brain Modelling Group, Queensland Institute of Medical Research Berghofer, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
⁷ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Queensland St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
⁸ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Queensland St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
⁹ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
¹⁰ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
¹¹ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
¹² Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
¹³ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
¹⁴ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
¹⁵ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
¹⁶ Grantley Stable Neonatal Unit, Womens and Newborn Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Queensland St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].

PMID: 39665965
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2024.09.012

Abstract

Background: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) injuries are common for premature infants. Clinical use of three-dimensional (3D) scanning is established in adult medicine, but the possibilities in neonatal care are still emerging. Custom printed CPAP devices have the potential to reduce injuries and disfigurement in this vulnerable population.

Aim: We sought to identify the most feasible portable 3D scanner for use in the neonatal intensive care environment towards the development of custom-fitting CPAP devices for premature infants.

Methods: Four handheld 3D scanners were assessed and compared, Artec Leo, Revopoint POP 2, iPad Pro/Metascan, and iPhone/Scandy Pro. Trained neonatal clinicians (medical and nursing) undertook mock scans in a simulated neonatal intensive care environment.

Results: Sixty scans were performed by 13 neonatal clinicians (four medical/nurse practitioners and nine nurses). The median mean absolute error was 0.21 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.19-0.26), 0.17 mm (IQR: 0.15-0.21), and 1.08 mm (IQR: 1.0-1.63) for Artec Leo, Revopoint POP 2, and Scandy Pro, respectively. Scan times were the quickest for Artec Leo at 22.9 sec (IQR: 18.5-27), followed by Revopoint POP 2 at 25.2 sec (IQR: 22-34.4). Artec Leo was rated most expensive, but Revopoint POP 2 was rated more ergonomic. Both app-based 3D scanners (Metascan and Scandy Pro) presented data security issues.

Conclusions: Artec Leo and Revopoint POP 2 were identified as most feasible for use to perform 3D scans on premature infants in the neonatal intensive care environment.

Keywords: Continuous positive airway pressure; Face scanning; Handheld scanner; Medical device; Medical engineering; Neonatal; Personalisation.