Xiangxue Kong1, Lanying Nie2, Huijian Zhang3, Zhanglin Wang1, Qiang Ye4, Lei Tang1, Wenhua Huang5, Jianyi Li6. 1. Department of Anatomy, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Biomechanics, School of Basic Medical Science, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 2. Department of Traumatic Orthopedics, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Urology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 4. Department of Radiology, The 3rd Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 5. Department of Anatomy, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Biomechanics, School of Basic Medical Science, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. hwh@fimmu.com. 6. Department of Anatomy, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Biomechanics, School of Basic Medical Science, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. lijianyi@outlook.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is a difficult and frustrating task for young surgeons and medical students to understand the anatomy of hepatic segments. We tried to develop an optimal 3D printing model of hepatic segments as a teaching aid to improve the teaching of hepatic segments. METHODS: A fresh human cadaveric liver without hepatic disease was CT scanned. After 3D reconstruction, three types of 3D computer models of hepatic structures were designed and 3D printed as models of hepatic segments without parenchyma (type 1) and with transparent parenchyma (type 2), and hepatic ducts with segmental partitions (type 3). These models were evaluated by six experts using a five-point Likert scale. Ninety two medical freshmen were randomized into four groups to learn hepatic segments with the aid of the three types of models and traditional anatomic atlas (TAA). Their results of two quizzes were compared to evaluate the teaching effects of the four methods. RESULTS: Three types of models were successful produced which displayed the structures of hepatic segments. By experts' evaluation, type 3 model was better than type 1 and 2 models in anatomical condition, type 2 and 3 models were better than type 1 model in tactility, and type 3 model was better than type 1 model in overall satisfaction (P < 0.05). The first quiz revealed that type 1 model was better than type 2 model and TAA, while type 3 model was better than type 2 and TAA in teaching effects (P < 0.05). The second quiz found that type 1 model was better than TAA, while type 3 model was better than type 2 model and TAA regarding teaching effects (P < 0.05). Only TAA group had significant declines between two quizzes (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The model with segmental partitions proves to be optimal, because it can best improve anatomical teaching about hepatic segments.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It is a difficult and frustrating task for young surgeons and medical students to understand the anatomy of hepatic segments. We tried to develop an optimal 3D printing model of hepatic segments as a teaching aid to improve the teaching of hepatic segments. METHODS: A fresh human cadaveric liver without hepatic disease was CT scanned. After 3D reconstruction, three types of 3D computer models of hepatic structures were designed and 3D printed as models of hepatic segments without parenchyma (type 1) and with transparent parenchyma (type 2), and hepatic ducts with segmental partitions (type 3). These models were evaluated by six experts using a five-point Likert scale. Ninety two medical freshmen were randomized into four groups to learn hepatic segments with the aid of the three types of models and traditional anatomic atlas (TAA). Their results of two quizzes were compared to evaluate the teaching effects of the four methods. RESULTS: Three types of models were successful produced which displayed the structures of hepatic segments. By experts' evaluation, type 3 model was better than type 1 and 2 models in anatomical condition, type 2 and 3 models were better than type 1 model in tactility, and type 3 model was better than type 1 model in overall satisfaction (P < 0.05). The first quiz revealed that type 1 model was better than type 2 model and TAA, while type 3 model was better than type 2 and TAA in teaching effects (P < 0.05). The second quiz found that type 1 model was better than TAA, while type 3 model was better than type 2 model and TAA regarding teaching effects (P < 0.05). Only TAA group had significant declines between two quizzes (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The model with segmental partitions proves to be optimal, because it can best improve anatomical teaching about hepatic segments.
Authors: Károly Németh; Rahul Deshpande; Zoltán Máthé; András Szuák; Mátyás Kiss; Csaba Korom; Ágnes Nemeskéri; László Kóbori Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Nizar N Zein; Ibrahim A Hanouneh; Paul D Bishop; Maggie Samaan; Bijan Eghtesad; Cristiano Quintini; Charles Miller; Lisa Yerian; Ryan Klatte Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Sheng Lu; Yong Q Xu; William W Lu; Guo X Ni; Yan B Li; Ji H Shi; Dong P Li; Guo P Chen; Yu B Chen; Yuan Z Zhang Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jan Sylwester Witowski; Michał Pędziwiatr; Piotr Major; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Thore M Bücking; Emma R Hill; James L Robertson; Efthymios Maneas; Andrew A Plumb; Daniil I Nikitichev Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240