skip to main content
10.1145/3460238.3460252acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicbetConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Acquisition and Analysis of Liposuction Force Signal and Design of a Fat-Mimicking Phantom for Liposuction Training

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 July 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Objective The purpose of this study is to acquire and analyze the force signal of clinical liposuction and design a fat-mimicking phantom for liposuction training. Methods The force signal data of five clinical liposuction cases were processed, based on which a human subcutaneous fat mimicking phantom was made. We utilized a dynamic time warping (DTW) algorithm to test the similarity between the mimicking phantom and subcutaneous fat. Results The average resistance of the liposuction was 7.36 N, and the optimal gelatin concentration of the phantom was 11.47%. There was no significant difference between the variation tendency of the resistance of simulated liposuction and clinical liposuction (P > 0.05). Conclusion The mimicking phantom has suction force feedback similar to that of human subcutaneous fat.

References

  1. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2019. ISAPS international survey on aesthetic / cosmetic procedures performed in 2018 [DB / OL]. (Dec. 2019). Retrieved Nov. 28, 2020. https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ISAPS-Global-Survey-Results-2018-1.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Illouz Y G. 1996. History and current concepts of lipoplasty. Clin. Plast. Surg. 23, 4 (Sept. 30, 1996), 721–730.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Phillip J. Stephan and Jeffrey M. Kenkel. 2010. Updates and Advances in Liposuction. Aesthet. Surg. J. 30, 1 (Jan. 2010), 83–97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Alan Matarasso. 2011. Analysis of Postoperative Complications for Superficial Liposuction: A Review of 2398 Cases. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 127, 2 (Feb. 2011), 872–873.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Hiba Ezzeddine, Ahmad Husari, Hussein Nassar, Mariam Kanso, Ghina El Nounou, Mohamad Khalife, and Walid Faraj. 2018. Life Threatening Complications Post-Liposuction. Aesthet. Plast. Surg. 42, 2 (Jan. 31, 2018), 384–387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ian Chow, Mohammed S. Alghoul, Nima Khavanin, Philip J. Hanwright, Kristen E. Mayer, Keith M. Hume, Robert X. Murphy, Karol A. Gutowski, and John Y. S. Kim. 2015. Is There a Safe Lipoaspirate Volume? A Risk Assessment Model of Liposuction Volume as a Function of Body Mass Index. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 136, 3 (Sept. 2015), 474–483.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. O. Heymans, P. Castus, F. X. Grandjean, and D. Van Zele. 2006. Liposuction: Review of the Techniques, Innovations and Applications. Acta. Chir. Belg. 106, 6 (March 11, 2006), 647–653.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Elisa Bellini, Michele P. Grieco, and Edoardo Raposio. 2017. A journey through liposuction and liposculture: Review. Ann. Med. Surg. 24 (Dec. 2017), 53–60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. S. K. Sarker and B. Patel. Simulation and surgical training. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 61, 12 (Nov. 7, 2007), 2120–2125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. M.J. Oldfield, D. Dini, T. Jaiswal, and F. Rodriguez y Baena. 2013. The significance of rate dependency in blade insertions into a gelatin soft tissue phantom. Tribol. Int. 63 (July 2013), 226–234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. A. Kianimajd, M.G. Ruano, P. Carvalho, J. Henriques, T. Rocha, S. Paredes, and A.E. Ruano. 2017. Comparison of different methods of measuring similarity in physiologic time series. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50, 1 (July 2017), 11005–11010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICBET '21: Proceedings of the 2021 11th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Technology
    March 2021
    200 pages
    ISBN:9781450387897
    DOI:10.1145/3460238

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 20 July 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format