Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2026
Cost-effectiveness and educational utility of a 3-dimensional-printed model of the hand and wrist.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Attia Fady E, Raghuwanshi Jasraj S, Khalil Essam, Nguyen Vivien, Shaikh Zuhayr, Attia Joseph, Erolin Caroline, Moyer David G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study compares the cost-effectiveness and educational utility of a 3-dimensional (3D)-printed hand model with a commercial model used in first-year medical student education.
METHOD: The 3D model was derived from a virtual rendering of a patient's hand and printed using polylactic acid filament on a 3D printer, with excess filament removed and neurovasculature wires added in postprocessing. On February 6, 2024, first-year University of Virginia School of Medicine medical students were randomized to study the 3D-printed model or a comparable commercial model during a 30-minute guided session. Students then completed a 19-question practical examination on anatomical knowledge using Bloom's taxonomy. Examination questions covered muscles, tendons, neurovasculature, osteology, ligaments, and clinical scenarios. Students provided qualitative feedback on their experience with the models. Costs were calculated.
RESULTS: Eighty students completed the anatomical knowledge examination, with 41 randomized to the 3D-printed model group and 39 to the commercial model group. Production of raw materials cost $24.58 per unit with an estimated cost if student volunteers were unavailable of $99.56 per unit, representing an average cost reduction of 94.4% compared with the commercial model's retail price ($1,098). Both models had comparable mean (SD) examination scores (61.6% [3.3%] in the 3D group vs 62.6% [3.0%] in the commercial group; P = .59). Qualitative feedback highlighted the anatomical accuracy of the 3D model but noted a preference for the labeling and disassembly features of the commercial model.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the locally constructed 3D-printed hand model was noninferior to the commercial model for teaching anatomy in a single-site pilot study in a first-year medical school anatomy class. The findings suggest that this 3D-printed model could serve as a cost-effective alternative in medical education, particularly in resource-limited settings. Future improvements in design, such as incorporating modular components, could optimize their educational value.
METHOD: The 3D model was derived from a virtual rendering of a patient's hand and printed using polylactic acid filament on a 3D printer, with excess filament removed and neurovasculature wires added in postprocessing. On February 6, 2024, first-year University of Virginia School of Medicine medical students were randomized to study the 3D-printed model or a comparable commercial model during a 30-minute guided session. Students then completed a 19-question practical examination on anatomical knowledge using Bloom's taxonomy. Examination questions covered muscles, tendons, neurovasculature, osteology, ligaments, and clinical scenarios. Students provided qualitative feedback on their experience with the models. Costs were calculated.
RESULTS: Eighty students completed the anatomical knowledge examination, with 41 randomized to the 3D-printed model group and 39 to the commercial model group. Production of raw materials cost $24.58 per unit with an estimated cost if student volunteers were unavailable of $99.56 per unit, representing an average cost reduction of 94.4% compared with the commercial model's retail price ($1,098). Both models had comparable mean (SD) examination scores (61.6% [3.3%] in the 3D group vs 62.6% [3.0%] in the commercial group; P = .59). Qualitative feedback highlighted the anatomical accuracy of the 3D model but noted a preference for the labeling and disassembly features of the commercial model.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the locally constructed 3D-printed hand model was noninferior to the commercial model for teaching anatomy in a single-site pilot study in a first-year medical school anatomy class. The findings suggest that this 3D-printed model could serve as a cost-effective alternative in medical education, particularly in resource-limited settings. Future improvements in design, such as incorporating modular components, could optimize their educational value.