Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2019
Use of 3D-Printed and 2D-Illustrated International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification Anatomic Models for Resident Education.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Low Christopher M, Morris Jonathan M, Matsumoto Jane S, Stokken Janalee K, O'Brien Erin K, Choby Garret
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of 2-dimensional (2D) illustrations and 3-dimensonal (3D)-printed anatomic models of the frontal sinuses according to the International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification in the education of otolaryngology and radiology residents.
STUDY DESIGN: A crossover study design with half of the study participants randomized to the 2D illustration intervention first and the other half randomized to the 3D-printed model first.
SETTING: Regularly scheduled resident didactic lectures at a tertiary care center.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-one otolaryngology and radiology residents were assessed with pre- and postintervention questionnaires that included subjective and objective methods of assessment.
RESULTS: Overall, there was a statistically significant improvement in total number of answers correct and in confidence score between the pre- and postintervention assessments (P < .0001). The primary outcome of order of intervention (ie, 2D → 3D vs 3D → 2D) did not result in statistically significant differences in postevaluation scores. In regard to the secondary outcome of learner preference for educational modality, radiology residents favored the 2D illustrations to understand anatomic relationships, while otolaryngology residents preferred the 3D model to be more helpful in surgical planning (P = .0075).
CONCLUSION: There is no difference between 2D-illustrated and 3D-printed International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification anatomic models in overall educational outcome, despite the preference of learners. Together, these models can be used as helpful tools in frontal sinus education for otolaryngology and radiology trainees.
STUDY DESIGN: A crossover study design with half of the study participants randomized to the 2D illustration intervention first and the other half randomized to the 3D-printed model first.
SETTING: Regularly scheduled resident didactic lectures at a tertiary care center.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-one otolaryngology and radiology residents were assessed with pre- and postintervention questionnaires that included subjective and objective methods of assessment.
RESULTS: Overall, there was a statistically significant improvement in total number of answers correct and in confidence score between the pre- and postintervention assessments (P < .0001). The primary outcome of order of intervention (ie, 2D → 3D vs 3D → 2D) did not result in statistically significant differences in postevaluation scores. In regard to the secondary outcome of learner preference for educational modality, radiology residents favored the 2D illustrations to understand anatomic relationships, while otolaryngology residents preferred the 3D model to be more helpful in surgical planning (P = .0075).
CONCLUSION: There is no difference between 2D-illustrated and 3D-printed International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification anatomic models in overall educational outcome, despite the preference of learners. Together, these models can be used as helpful tools in frontal sinus education for otolaryngology and radiology trainees.