Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024
Three-dimensional printed anatomical models as an educational tool for orthopaedic surgical trainees - A single institution experience.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Chan Li YiTammy, Yam Gui Jie Michael
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of three-dimensional (3D) anatomical models as an educational tool among Orthopaedic surgical trainees.
METHODS: Seven types of 3D anatomical models - humerus, elbow, ankle, calcaneum, knee, femur, and pelvis- based on patients' computational tomography (CT) scans were printed in the study institution and used by surgical trainees preoperatively. Responses were collected in the form of a Likert scale questionnaire. Descriptive statistics of participants' ratings were calculated. Non-parametric analysis using Wilcoxon test and Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to determine if effectiveness varied with gender, clinical experience, and anatomical model type.
DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Single center study.
PARTICIPANT SELECTION CRITERIA: All participants within a period of 16 months who were Orthopaedic surgical trainees within the study institution and utilised 3D anatomical models preoperatively were selected for this study.
OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Primary outcome was Likert scale ratings for three aspects - understanding of patients' anatomy, learning of a patient-specific orthopaedic condition, retention of anatomical knowledge.
RESULTS: This study revealed that 3D anatomical models were well-received as an educational tool among Orthopaedic surgical trainees. There were no significant differences between gender, clinical experience or anatomical model type regarding 3D models in improving understanding of patient anatomy and retention of anatomical knowledge (p < 0.05). There were significant differences among participants based on clinical experience regarding the use of 3D models in learning of the patient-specific orthopaedic condition (p = 0.0106).
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results from this study demonstrate overall effectiveness of 3D models as an educational tool in Orthopaedic surgery, but is limited by the qualitative nature of data collected. Higher quality evidence is required to demonstrate that 3D anatomical models are effective tools to impart critical knowledge of anatomy to surgical trainees.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
METHODS: Seven types of 3D anatomical models - humerus, elbow, ankle, calcaneum, knee, femur, and pelvis- based on patients' computational tomography (CT) scans were printed in the study institution and used by surgical trainees preoperatively. Responses were collected in the form of a Likert scale questionnaire. Descriptive statistics of participants' ratings were calculated. Non-parametric analysis using Wilcoxon test and Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to determine if effectiveness varied with gender, clinical experience, and anatomical model type.
DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Single center study.
PARTICIPANT SELECTION CRITERIA: All participants within a period of 16 months who were Orthopaedic surgical trainees within the study institution and utilised 3D anatomical models preoperatively were selected for this study.
OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Primary outcome was Likert scale ratings for three aspects - understanding of patients' anatomy, learning of a patient-specific orthopaedic condition, retention of anatomical knowledge.
RESULTS: This study revealed that 3D anatomical models were well-received as an educational tool among Orthopaedic surgical trainees. There were no significant differences between gender, clinical experience or anatomical model type regarding 3D models in improving understanding of patient anatomy and retention of anatomical knowledge (p < 0.05). There were significant differences among participants based on clinical experience regarding the use of 3D models in learning of the patient-specific orthopaedic condition (p = 0.0106).
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results from this study demonstrate overall effectiveness of 3D models as an educational tool in Orthopaedic surgery, but is limited by the qualitative nature of data collected. Higher quality evidence is required to demonstrate that 3D anatomical models are effective tools to impart critical knowledge of anatomy to surgical trainees.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.