Skip to content

Soft Tissue Phantoms for Realistic Needle Insertion – A Comparative Study

  • by garon@biomomentum.com

Alexander Leibinger; Antonio E. Forte; Zhengchu Tan; Matthew J. Oldfield; Frank Beyrau; Daniele Dini; Ferdinando Rodriguez y Baena
Annals of Biomedical Engineering. pp 1-11 (2015)

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-015-1523-0

82 citations · 12 in 2025–2026

Phantoms are common substitutes for soft tissues in biomechanical research and are usually tuned to match tissue properties using standard testing protocols at small strains. However, the response due to complex tool-tissue interactions can differ depending on the phantom and no comprehensive comparative study has been published to date, which could aid researchers to select suitable materials. In this work, gelatin, a common phantom in literature, and a composite hydrogel developed at Imperial College, were matched for mechanical stiffness to porcine brain, and the interactions during needle insertions within them were analyzed. Specifically, we examined insertion forces for brain and the phantoms; we also measured displacements and strains within the phantoms via a laser-based image correlation technique in combination with fluorescent beads. It is shown that the insertion forces for gelatin and brain agree closely, but that the composite hydrogel better mimics the viscous nature of soft tissue. Both materials match different characteristics of brain, but neither of them is a perfect substitute. Thus, when selecting a phantom material, both the soft tissue properties and the complex tool-tissue interactions arising during tissue manipulation should be taken into consideration. These conclusions are presented in tabular form to aid future selection.

Equipment used

Gelatin and a composite hydrogel were matched to porcine brain stiffness and compared during needle insertion. The study measured insertion forces and used laser-based image correlation with fluorescent beads to measure phantom displacements and strains. The available abstract does not identify the stiffness-testing or insertion-force equipment, so no operation can be attributed to the Mach-1 Mechanical Tester.

Article and documents

Materials (2)

Test configurations (2)

See Research in Action

Explore case studies

Report a problem with this page

Your email is used only to follow up on this report.

Screenshots (optional)

Click this area and paste a screenshot, or drag files here. Up to 3 PNG, JPEG or WebP images; 5 MB per image. Hide confidential information first.

Please do not include passwords or customer information. Reports and screenshots are private.