Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Head and Neck Cancer

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1655175

This article is part of the Research TopicThe Application of 3D Printing Technologies in Head and Neck Cancer SurgeryView all articles

Surgeon's perceptions on 3D visualization methods in parotid gland tumor surgery

Provisionally accepted
Manon  MollManon Moll*Coralie  ArendsCoralie ArendsLoes  BraunLoes BraunMatthijs  Hugo ValstarMatthijs Hugo ValstarLudwig  SmeeleLudwig SmeeleCharlotte  ZuurCharlotte ZuurMaarten  Van AlphenMaarten Van AlphenLuc  KarssemakersLuc Karssemakers
  • Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction: Recent advances in high-resolution MRI and reconstruction techniques offer new opportunities to enhance visualization of the facial nerve and its relationship to parotid tumors in 3D models. The aim of this study is twofold: first, to assess the technical feasibility of generating three-dimensional printed anatomical models from MRI data. Second, to evaluate surgeons' perceptions of three different visualization methods (3D models on a 2D screen, 3D-printed models, and augmented reality (AR) holograms) to identify the most advantageous method for surgeons performing parotid gland tumor surgery. Methods: Fifteen surgeons (otolaryngologists, cranio-maxillofacial, and head and neck) evaluated four clinical Cases using all three visualization methods, in addition to conventional MRI. Participants completed structured questionnaires assessing anatomical clarity, clinical utility, and perceived usefulness and ease of use. Statistical analyses included Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, as well as Spearman correlations. Results: AR holograms achieved the highest median scores for tumor visibility, while all methods performed equally on anatomical landmark visibility. Significant differences in surgical decision-making were observed across cases, with 3D visualizations influencing preferences for surgical approach and perceived risk of facial nerve injury. For intended use, screen-based 3D models and conventional MRI were rated highest for patient consultation and preoperative planning, while intraoperative use received lower scores overall. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scores were highest for AR and 2D screen models. The 3D-printed models were generally rated lower, though some value was noted for patient communication. Conclusion: Printing the facial nerve in relation to a tumor is feasible, despite technical challenges, for which solutions are provided. For clinical care, an anticipated role in preoperative patient consultation and surgical planning of 3D models was favored more than intraoperative use. Among the visualization methods, 3D-printed models were perceived as less effective than those displayed on a 2D screen or in AR. 3D models can serve as valuable adjuncts, but they do not replace conventional MRI.

Keywords: Facial Nerve, Parotidectomy, segmentation, 3D printing, AR visualization

Received: 27 Jun 2025; Accepted: 29 Aug 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Moll, Arends, Braun, Valstar, Smeele, Zuur, Van Alphen and Karssemakers. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Manon Moll, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.