MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1186/s41205-026-00342-w

Медицинская библиотека · 3D printing in medicine · 2026

Lecture, model, or both? Optimizing fracture education with 3D printing: a longitudinal interventional study.

Cramer Christopher, Strahl André, Frosch Karl-Heinz, Rüsseler Miriam, Dust Tobias

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Traditional anatomical training methods in surgery, like cadaver dissection and didactic lectures, face limitations in availability, cost, and translating 2D to 3D understanding. Three-dimensional (3D) printing offers an innovative solution for medical education, particularly in orthopedics and trauma surgery, where complex bone structures are crucial. 3D-printed models show promise for improving anatomical learning, spatial understanding, and student satisfaction.

METHODS

This longitudinal interventional study investigated the impact of different teaching methods on medical students' knowledge acquisition and perceptions regarding fibula fracture management. Sixty-seven 3rd or 4th-year students, randomized into three groups, participated. Group 1 received a 20-minute lecture, Group 2 engaged in model-based learning using a 3D-printed fibula model, and Group 3 received a combination of lecture and model-based learning. Knowledge was assessed via a written quiz, and subjective feedback and personal motivation were measured. Assessments occurred immediately before (t0), immediately after (t1), and four weeks after (t2) the teaching unit.

RESULTS

At baseline (t0), there were no significant group differences in processing time. Immediately post-training (t1), the lecture group showed the shortest processing time. The lecture + practice group achieved the highest mean knowledge score at t1, significantly outperforming both practice and lecture groups (8.25 vs. 5.09 vs. 6.82, p < 0.01). At the four-week follow-up (t2), significant group differences persisted, with lecture + practice maintaining a significantly higher mean score than practice (5.75 vs. 3.46, p < 0.05). Overall, knowledge significantly improved from t0 to t1 and t0 to t2, though a decrease was noted between t1 and t2. Subjective feedback consistently indicated that practical and combined methods were more suitable for understanding, enhanced security, and promoted interest.

CONCLUSIONS

3D models improve anatomical learning and student satisfaction. The combined lecture + model approach demonstrated superior immediate and sustained knowledge acquisition for complex topics like fracture management. This aligns with pedagogical theories such as constructivism and cognitive load theory, suggesting that integrating theoretical context with physical models optimizes learning outcomes. This study underscores the importance of rigorous comparative designs for effectively integrating innovative tools like 3D printing into medical education.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Для цитирования: Cramer Christopher, Strahl André, Frosch Karl-Heinz, Rüsseler Miriam, Dust Tobias. Lecture, model, or both? Optimizing fracture education with 3D printing: a longitudinal interventional study.. 3D printing in medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-026-00342-w.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.