Yi-xiong Zheng1, Di-fei Yu1, Jian-gang Zhao1, Yu-lian Wu2, Bin Zheng3. 1. Department of Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. 2. Department of Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. Electronic address: zyx_xxn@126.com. 3. Department of Surgery, Surgical Simulation Research Lab, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Correct interpretation of a patient's anatomy and changes that occurs secondary to a disease process are crucial in the preoperative process to ensure optimal surgical treatment. In this study, we presented 3 different pancreatic cancer cases to surgical residents in the form of 3D-rendered images and 3D-printed models to investigate which modality resulted in the most appropriate preoperative plan. METHODS: We selected 3 cases that would require significantly different preoperative plans based on key features identifiable in the preoperative computed tomography imaging. 3D volume rendering and 3D printing were performed respectively to create 2 different training ways. A total of 30, year 1 surgical residents were randomly divided into 2 groups. Besides traditional 2D computed tomography images, residents in group A (n = 15) reviewed 3D computer models, whereas in group B, residents (n = 15) reviewed 3D-printed models. Both groups subsequently completed an examination, designed in-house, to assess the appropriateness of their preoperative plan and provide a numerical score of the quality of the surgical plan. RESULTS: Residents in group B showed significantly higher quality of the surgical plan scores compared with residents in group A (76.4 ± 10.5 vs. 66.5 ± 11.2, p = 0.018). This difference was due in large part to a significant difference in knowledge of key surgical steps (22.1 ± 2.9 vs. 17.4 ± 4.2, p = 0.004) between each group. All participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the exercise. CONCLUSION: Results from this study support our hypothesis that 3D-printed models improve the quality of surgical trainee's preoperative plans.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Correct interpretation of a patient's anatomy and changes that occurs secondary to a disease process are crucial in the preoperative process to ensure optimal surgical treatment. In this study, we presented 3 different pancreatic cancer cases to surgical residents in the form of 3D-rendered images and 3D-printed models to investigate which modality resulted in the most appropriate preoperative plan. METHODS: We selected 3 cases that would require significantly different preoperative plans based on key features identifiable in the preoperative computed tomography imaging. 3D volume rendering and 3D printing were performed respectively to create 2 different training ways. A total of 30, year 1 surgical residents were randomly divided into 2 groups. Besides traditional 2D computed tomography images, residents in group A (n = 15) reviewed 3D computer models, whereas in group B, residents (n = 15) reviewed 3D-printed models. Both groups subsequently completed an examination, designed in-house, to assess the appropriateness of their preoperative plan and provide a numerical score of the quality of the surgical plan. RESULTS: Residents in group B showed significantly higher quality of the surgical plan scores compared with residents in group A (76.4 ± 10.5 vs. 66.5 ± 11.2, p = 0.018). This difference was due in large part to a significant difference in knowledge of key surgical steps (22.1 ± 2.9 vs. 17.4 ± 4.2, p = 0.004) between each group. All participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the exercise. CONCLUSION: Results from this study support our hypothesis that 3D-printed models improve the quality of surgical trainee's preoperative plans.
Authors: Michael A Bohl; James J Zhou; Michael A Mooney; Garrett J Repp; Claudio Cavallo; Peter Nakaji; Steve W Chang; Jay D Turner; U Kumar Kakarla Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2019-03
Authors: Andreas Pabst; Elisabeth Goetze; Daniel G E Thiem; Alexander K Bartella; Lukas Seifert; Fabian M Beiglboeck; Juliane Kröplin; Jürgen Hoffmann; Alexander-N Zeller Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Georges E Daoud; Dante L Pezzutti; Calvin J Dolatowski; Ricardo L Carrau; Mary Pancake; Edward Herderick; Kyle K VanKoevering Journal: J Mater Res Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 3.089