Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 213-221 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Anatomical Sciences Education |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 May 2016 |
Keywords
- 3D printing
- Additive manufacturing
- Anatomical models
- Cadavers
- Gross anatomy education
- Human anatomy
- image processing
- medical education
- rapid prototyping
Cite this
}
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 journal › Article › Research › peer-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 -