Benjamin Langridge1, Sheikh Momin1, Ben Coumbe1, Evelina Woin1, Michelle Griffin2, Peter Butler3. 1. University College London Medical School, London, United Kingdom. 2. Charles Wolfson Center for Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Rheumatology, Royal Free Hospital, University College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: 12michellegriffin@gmail.com. 3. Charles Wolfson Center for Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Rheumatology, Royal Free Hospital, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The use of 3-dimensional (3D) printing in medicine has rapidly expanded in recent years as the technology has developed. The potential uses of 3D printing are manifold. This article provides a systematic review of the uses of 3D printing within surgical training and assessment. METHODS: A structured literature search of the major literature databases was performed in adherence to PRISMA guidelines. Articles that met predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were appraised with respect to the key objectives of the review and sources of bias were analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 49 studies were identified for inclusion in the qualitative analysis. Heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures used prohibited meaningful meta-analysis. 3D printing has been used in surgical training across a broad range of specialities but most commonly in neurosurgery and otorhinolaryngology. Both objective and subjective outcome measures have been studied, demonstrating the usage of 3D printed models in training and education. 3D printing has also been used in anatomical education and preoperative planning, demonstrating improved outcomes when compared to traditional educational methods and improved patient outcomes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing technology has a broad range of potential applications within surgical education and training. Although the field is still in its relative infancy, several studies have already demonstrated its usage both instead of and in addition to traditional educational methods.
OBJECTIVE: The use of 3-dimensional (3D) printing in medicine has rapidly expanded in recent years as the technology has developed. The potential uses of 3D printing are manifold. This article provides a systematic review of the uses of 3D printing within surgical training and assessment. METHODS: A structured literature search of the major literature databases was performed in adherence to PRISMA guidelines. Articles that met predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were appraised with respect to the key objectives of the review and sources of bias were analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 49 studies were identified for inclusion in the qualitative analysis. Heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures used prohibited meaningful meta-analysis. 3D printing has been used in surgical training across a broad range of specialities but most commonly in neurosurgery and otorhinolaryngology. Both objective and subjective outcome measures have been studied, demonstrating the usage of 3D printed models in training and education. 3D printing has also been used in anatomical education and preoperative planning, demonstrating improved outcomes when compared to traditional educational methods and improved patient outcomes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing technology has a broad range of potential applications within surgical education and training. Although the field is still in its relative infancy, several studies have already demonstrated its usage both instead of and in addition to traditional educational methods.
Authors: Virginia T Gauger; Deborah Rooney; Kevin J Kovatch; Lauren Richey; Allison Powell; Hailesllassie Berhe; David A Zopf Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: Christopher S Graffeo; Avital Perry; Lucas P Carlstrom; Maria Peris-Celda; Amy Alexander; Hunter J Dickens; Michael J Holroyd; Colin L W Driscoll; Michael J Link; Jonathan Morris Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2021-02-22
Authors: Jellina M Huitema; Nynke van der Gaast; Lars Brouwers; Ruurd L Jaarsma; Job N Doornberg; Michael J R Edwards; Erik Hermans Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Simon Weidert; Sebastian Andress; Eduardo Suero; Christopher Becker; Maximilian Hartel; Maren Behle; Christian Willy Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.000
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