Use of 3D printed models in medical education: A randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy

Kah Heng Alexander Lim, Zhou Y Loo, Stephen J Goldie, Justin W Adams, Paul G McMenamin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

79 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology capable of readily producing accurate anatomical models, however, evidence for the use of 3D prints in medical education remains limited. A study was performed to assess their effectiveness against cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. A double blind randomized controlled trial was undertaken on undergraduate medical students without prior formal cardiac anatomy teaching. Following a pre-test examining baseline external cardiac anatomy knowledge, participants were randomly assigned to three groups who underwent self-directed learning sessions using either cadaveric materials, 3D prints, or a combination of cadaveric materials/3D prints (combined materials). Participants were then subjected to a post-test written by a third party. Fifty-two participants completed the trial; 18 using cadaveric materials, 16 using 3D models, and 18 using combined materials. Age and time since completion of high school were equally distributed between groups. Pre-test scores were not significantly different (P = 0.231), however, post-test scores were significantly higher for 3D prints group compared to the cadaveric materials or combined materials groups (mean of 60.83 vs. 44.81 and 44.62 , P = 0.010, adjusted P = 0.012). A significant improvement in test scores was detected for the 3D prints group (P = 0.003) but not for the other two groups. The finding of this pilot study suggests that use of 3D prints do not disadvantage students relative to cadaveric materials; maximally, results suggest that 3D may confer certain benefits to anatomy learning and supports their use and ongoing evaluation as supplements to cadaver-based curriculums. Anat Sci Educ. (c) 2015 American Association of Anatomists.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)213-221
Number of pages9
JournalAnatomical Sciences Education
Volume9
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2016

Keywords

  • 3D printing
  • Additive manufacturing
  • Anatomical models
  • Cadavers
  • Gross anatomy education
  • Human anatomy
  • image processing
  • medical education
  • rapid prototyping

Cite this

@article{7f5af29c05314a00b016eacbb9401596,
title = "Use of 3D printed models in medical education: A randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy",
abstract = "Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology capable of readily producing accurate anatomical models, however, evidence for the use of 3D prints in medical education remains limited. A study was performed to assess their effectiveness against cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. A double blind randomized controlled trial was undertaken on undergraduate medical students without prior formal cardiac anatomy teaching. Following a pre-test examining baseline external cardiac anatomy knowledge, participants were randomly assigned to three groups who underwent self-directed learning sessions using either cadaveric materials, 3D prints, or a combination of cadaveric materials/3D prints (combined materials). Participants were then subjected to a post-test written by a third party. Fifty-two participants completed the trial; 18 using cadaveric materials, 16 using 3D models, and 18 using combined materials. Age and time since completion of high school were equally distributed between groups. Pre-test scores were not significantly different (P = 0.231), however, post-test scores were significantly higher for 3D prints group compared to the cadaveric materials or combined materials groups (mean of 60.83 vs. 44.81 and 44.62 , P = 0.010, adjusted P = 0.012). A significant improvement in test scores was detected for the 3D prints group (P = 0.003) but not for the other two groups. The finding of this pilot study suggests that use of 3D prints do not disadvantage students relative to cadaveric materials; maximally, results suggest that 3D may confer certain benefits to anatomy learning and supports their use and ongoing evaluation as supplements to cadaver-based curriculums. Anat Sci Educ. (c) 2015 American Association of Anatomists.",
keywords = "3D printing, Additive manufacturing, Anatomical models, Cadavers, Gross anatomy education, Human anatomy, image processing, medical education, rapid prototyping",
author = "Lim, {Kah Heng Alexander} and Loo, {Zhou Y} and Goldie, {Stephen J} and Adams, {Justin W} and McMenamin, {Paul G}",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ase.1573",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "213--221",
journal = "Anatomical Sciences Education",
issn = "1935-9772",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Use of 3D printed models in medical education: A randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. / Lim, Kah Heng Alexander; Loo, Zhou Y; Goldie, Stephen J; Adams, Justin W; McMenamin, Paul G.

In: Anatomical Sciences Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, 01.05.2016, p. 213-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of 3D printed models in medical education: A randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy

AU - Lim, Kah Heng Alexander

AU - Loo, Zhou Y

AU - Goldie, Stephen J

AU - Adams, Justin W

AU - McMenamin, Paul G

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology capable of readily producing accurate anatomical models, however, evidence for the use of 3D prints in medical education remains limited. A study was performed to assess their effectiveness against cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. A double blind randomized controlled trial was undertaken on undergraduate medical students without prior formal cardiac anatomy teaching. Following a pre-test examining baseline external cardiac anatomy knowledge, participants were randomly assigned to three groups who underwent self-directed learning sessions using either cadaveric materials, 3D prints, or a combination of cadaveric materials/3D prints (combined materials). Participants were then subjected to a post-test written by a third party. Fifty-two participants completed the trial; 18 using cadaveric materials, 16 using 3D models, and 18 using combined materials. Age and time since completion of high school were equally distributed between groups. Pre-test scores were not significantly different (P = 0.231), however, post-test scores were significantly higher for 3D prints group compared to the cadaveric materials or combined materials groups (mean of 60.83 vs. 44.81 and 44.62 , P = 0.010, adjusted P = 0.012). A significant improvement in test scores was detected for the 3D prints group (P = 0.003) but not for the other two groups. The finding of this pilot study suggests that use of 3D prints do not disadvantage students relative to cadaveric materials; maximally, results suggest that 3D may confer certain benefits to anatomy learning and supports their use and ongoing evaluation as supplements to cadaver-based curriculums. Anat Sci Educ. (c) 2015 American Association of Anatomists.

AB - Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology capable of readily producing accurate anatomical models, however, evidence for the use of 3D prints in medical education remains limited. A study was performed to assess their effectiveness against cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. A double blind randomized controlled trial was undertaken on undergraduate medical students without prior formal cardiac anatomy teaching. Following a pre-test examining baseline external cardiac anatomy knowledge, participants were randomly assigned to three groups who underwent self-directed learning sessions using either cadaveric materials, 3D prints, or a combination of cadaveric materials/3D prints (combined materials). Participants were then subjected to a post-test written by a third party. Fifty-two participants completed the trial; 18 using cadaveric materials, 16 using 3D models, and 18 using combined materials. Age and time since completion of high school were equally distributed between groups. Pre-test scores were not significantly different (P = 0.231), however, post-test scores were significantly higher for 3D prints group compared to the cadaveric materials or combined materials groups (mean of 60.83 vs. 44.81 and 44.62 , P = 0.010, adjusted P = 0.012). A significant improvement in test scores was detected for the 3D prints group (P = 0.003) but not for the other two groups. The finding of this pilot study suggests that use of 3D prints do not disadvantage students relative to cadaveric materials; maximally, results suggest that 3D may confer certain benefits to anatomy learning and supports their use and ongoing evaluation as supplements to cadaver-based curriculums. Anat Sci Educ. (c) 2015 American Association of Anatomists.

KW - 3D printing

KW - Additive manufacturing

KW - Anatomical models

KW - Cadavers

KW - Gross anatomy education

KW - Human anatomy

KW - image processing

KW - medical education

KW - rapid prototyping

UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26468636

U2 - 10.1002/ase.1573

DO - 10.1002/ase.1573

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 213

EP - 221

JO - Anatomical Sciences Education

JF - Anatomical Sciences Education

SN - 1935-9772

IS - 3

ER -