Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Anaesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
2 Department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, Punjab, India
3 Department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
4 Department of Anatomy, BP Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Nepal
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many academicians suggested the supplementary use of 3D‑printed models
reconstructed from radiological images for optimal anatomy education. 3D‑printed model is newer
technology available to us. The purpose of this systematic review was to capture the usefulness or
effectiveness of this newer technology in anatomy education.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty‑two studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for
quantitative synthesis. The included studies were sub‑grouped according to the interventions and
participants. No restrictions were applied based on geographical location, language and publication
years. Randomized, controlled trial, cross‑sectional and cross‑over designs were included. The effect
size of each intervention in both participants was computed as a standardized mean difference (SMD).
RESULTS: Twenty‑two randomized, controlled trials were included for quantitative estimation of effect
size of knowledge acquisition as standardized mean difference in 1435 participants. The pooled effect
size for 3D‑printed model was 0.77 (0.45–1.09, 95% CI, P < 0.0001) with 86% heterogeneity. The
accuracy score was measured in only three studies and estimated effect size was 2.81 (1.08–4.54,
95% CI, P = 0.001) with 92% heterogeneity. The satisfaction score was examined by questionnaire in 6
studies. The estimated effect size was 2.00 (0.69–3.32, 95% CI, P= 0.003) with significant heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION: The participants exposed to the 3D‑printed model performed better than participants
who used traditional methodologies. Thus, the 3D‑printed model is a potential tool for anatomy
education.
Keywords
- Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy:
A review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 2010;3:83‑93.
2. Yammine K, Violato C. A meta‑analysis of the educational
effectiveness of three‑dimensional visualization technologies in
teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2015;8:525‑38.
3. Biasutto SN, Ignacio Caussa L, Esteban Criado del Río L. Teaching
anatomy: Cadavers vs. computers? Ann Anat 2006;188:187‑90.
4. Chytas D, Piagkou M, Salmas M, Johnson EO. Is cadaveric
dissection the “gold standard” for neuroanatomy education?
Anat Sci Educ 2020;13:804‑5.
5. Fruhstorfer BH, Palmer J, Brydges S, Abrahams PH. The use
of plastinated prosections for teaching anatomy‑The view of
medical students on the value of this learning resource. Clin Anat
2011;24:246‑52.
6. McMenamin PG, Quayle MR, McHenry CR, Adams JW.
The production of anatomical teaching resources using
three‑dimensional (3D) printing technology: 3D printing in
anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ 2014;7:479‑86.
7. Mogali SR, Yeong WY, Tan HKJ, Tan GJS, Abrahams PH, Zary N,
et al. Evaluation by medical students of the educational value
of multi‑material and multi‑colored three‑dimensional printed
models of the upper limb for anatomical education: 3D printed
upper limb in anatomical education. Anat Sci Educ 2018;11:54‑64.
8. Radzi S, Tan HKJ, Tan GJS, Yeong WY, Ferenczi MA, Low‑Beer N,
et al. Development of a three‑dimensional printed heart from
computed tomography images of a plastinated specimen for
learning anatomy. Anat Cell Biol 2020;53:48‑57.
9. Ye Z, Dun A, Jiang H, Nie C, Zhao S, Wang T, et al. The role of 3D
printed models in the teaching of human anatomy: A systematic
review and meta‑analysis. BMC Med Educ 2020;20:335.
10. Garas M, Vaccarezza M, Newland G, McVay‑Doornbusch K,
Hasani J. 3D‑Printed specimens as a valuable tool in anatomy
education: A pilot study. Ann Anat 2018;219:57‑64.
11. Fleming C, Sadaghiani MS, Stellon MA, Javan R. Effectiveness
of three‑dimensionally printed models in anatomy education for
medical students and resident physicians: Systematic review and
meta‑analysis. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:1220‑9.
12. Chen Y, Qian C, Shen R, Wu D, Bian L, Qu H, et al. 3D printing
technology improves medical interns’ understanding of anatomy
of gastrocolic trunk. J Surg Educ 2020;77:1279‑84.
13. Chen S, Pan Z, Wu Y, Gu Z, Li M, Liang Z, et al. The role of
three‑dimensional printed models of skull in anatomy education:
A randomized controlled trail. Sci Rep 2017;7:575.
14. Smith CF, Tollemache N, Covill D, Johnston M. Take away body
parts! An investigation into the use of 3D‑printed anatomical
models in undergraduate anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ
2018;11:44‑53.
15. Tanner JA, Jethwa B, Jackson J, Bartanuszova M, King TS,
Bhattacharya A, et al. A three‐dimensional print model of
the pterygopalatine fossa significantly enhances the learning
experience. Anat Sci Educ 2020;13:568‑80.
16. Li Z, Li Z, Xu R, Li M, Li J, Liu Y, et al. Three‑dimensional printing
models improve understanding of spinal fracture—A randomized
controlled study in China. Sci Rep 2015;5:11570. doi: 10.1038/
srep11570.
17. YiX, Ding C, Xu H, Huang T, Kang D, Wang D. Three‑dimensional
printed models in anatomy education of the ventricular
system: A randomized controlled study. World Neurosurg
2019;125:e891‑901.
18. Kirkpatrick JD, Kirkpatrick WK. Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels
of Training Evaluation. Association for Talent Development;
Alexandria, Virginia: ATD publisher 2016.
19. Williams BW, Byrne PD, Welindt D, Williams MV. Miller’s
pyramid and core competency assessment: A study in relationship
construct validity. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2016;36:295‑9.
20. Smith RP, Learman LA. A plea for MERSQI: The medical
education research study quality instrument. Obstet Gynecol
2017;130:686‑90.
21. AlAli AB, Griffin MF, Calonge WM, Butler PE. Evaluating the use
of cleft lip and palate 3D‑printed models as a teaching aid. J Surg
Educ 2018;75:200‑8.
22. Awan O, Dako F, Akhter T, Hava S, Shaikh F, Ali S, et al. Utilizing
audience response to foster evidence‑based learning in a pilot
study: Does It really work? Cureus; 10:e3799. doi: 10.7759/cureus.
3799.
23. Bangeas P, Drevelegas K, Agorastou C, Tzounis Lazaros, Chorti A,
Paramythiotis D. Three‑dimensional printing as an educational
tool in colorectal surgery. Front Biosci (Elite Ed) 2019;11:29‑37.
24. Bohl MA, Zhou JJ, Mooney MA, Repp GJ, Cavallo C, Nakaji P, et al.
The barrow biomimetic spine: Effect of a 3‑dimensional‑printed
spinal osteotomy model on performance of spinal osteotomies
by medical students and interns. J Spine Surg 2019;5:58‑65. - 25. Cai B, Rajendran K, Bay BH, Lee J, Yen C‑C. The effects of a
functional three‑dimensional (3D) printed knee joint simulator
in improving anatomical spatial knowledge. Anat Sci Educ
2019;12:610‑8.
26. Chedid VG, Kamath AA, Knudsen JM, Frimannsdottir K, Yost KJ,
Geske JR, et al. Three‑dimensional‑printed liver model helps
learners identify hepatic subsegments: A randomized‑controlled
cross‑over trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:1906‑10.
27. Guitarte Vidaurre A, Hadeed K, Dulac Y, Karsenty C, Acar P.
Usefulness of 3D printed models of congenital heart diseases
as educational tools for medical students. Arch Cardiovasc Dis
Suppl 2019;11:e329.
28. Jones TW, Seckeler MD. Use of 3D models of vascular rings
and slings to improve resident education. Congenit Heart Dis
2017;12:578‑82.
29. Hojo D, Murono K, Nozawa H, Kawai K, Hata K, Tanaka T, et al.
Utility of a three‑dimensional printed pelvic model for lateral
pelvic lymph node dissection. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020;35:905‑10.
30. Loke Y‑H, Harahsheh AS, Krieger A, Olivieri LJ. Usage of 3D
models of tetralogy of Fallot for medical education: Impact on
learning congenital heart disease. BMC Med Educ 2017;17:54.
31. Low CM, Morris JM, Matsumoto JS, Stokken JK, O’Brien EK,
Choby G. Use of 3D‑printed and 2D‑illustrated international
frontal sinus anatomy classification anatomic models for resident
education. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;161:705‑13.
32. Wang C, Daniel BK, Asil M, Khwaounjoo P, Cakmak YO.
A randomised control trial and comparative analysis of
multi‑dimensional learning tools in anatomy. Sci Rep 2020;10:6120.
33. White SC, Sedler J, Jones TW, Seckeler M. Utility of
three‑dimensional models in resident education on simple and
complex intracardiac congenital heart defects. Congenit Heart
Dis 2018;13:1045‑9.
34. Wu A‑M, Wang K, Wang J‑S, Chen C‑H, Yang X‑D, Ni W‑F, et al.
The addition of 3D printed models to enhance the teaching and
learning of bone spatial anatomy and fractures for undergraduate
students: A randomized controlled study. Ann Transl Med
2018;6:403. doi: 10.21037/atm. 2018.09.59.
35. Lin Q‑S, Lin Y‑X, Wu X‑Y, Yao P‑S, Chen P, Kang D‑Z. Utility of
3‑dimensional‑printed models in enhancing the learning curve
of surgery of tuberculum sellae meningioma. World Neurosurg
2018;113:e222‑31.
36. Su W, Xiao Y, He S, Huang P, Deng X. Three‑dimensional printing
models in congenital heart disease education for medical students:
A controlled comparative study. BMC Med Educ 2018;18:178.
37. Jansen Y, Dragicevic P, Fekete J‑D. Evaluating the efficiency of
physical visualizations. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paris France:
ACM; 2013. p. 2593‑602.Available from: https://dl.acm.org/
doi/10.1145/24706540.2481359. [Last accessed on 2021 Dec 04].
38. Khot RA. Exploring material representations of physical activity.
In: Proceedings of the 2014 Companion Publication on Designing
Interactive Systems‑DIS Companion ’14. Vancouver, BC, Canada:
ACM Press; 2014. p. 177‑80. Available from: http://dl.acm.
org/citation.cfm?doid=2598784.2598792. [Last accessed on
2021 Dec 04].
39. Jago R, Page AS, Cooper AR. Friends and physical activity during
the transition from primary to secondary school. Med Sci Sports
Exer 2012;44:111‑7.
40. Salvy S‑J, de la Haye K, Bowker JC, Hermans RCJ. Influence
of peers and friends on children’s and adolescents’ eating and
activity behaviors. Physiol Behav 2012;106:369‑78.
41. Salvy S‑J, Roemmich JN, Bowker JC, Romero ND, Stadler PJ,
Epstein LH. Effect of peers and friends on youth physical
activity and motivation to be physically active. J Pediatr Psychol
2008;34:217‑25.
42. Barkley JE, Salvy S‑J, Sanders GJ, Dey S, Von Carlowitz K‑P,
Williamson ML. Peer influence and physical activity behavior in
young children: An experimental study. J Phys Activity Health
2014;11:404‑9.
43. Pearce M, Page AS, Griffin TP, Cooper AR. Who children spend
time with after school: Associations with objectively recorded
indoor and outdoor physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
2014;11:45. doi: 10.1186/1479‑5868‑11‑45.
44. Chatterjee HJ, Hannan L. Engaging the Senses: Object‑Based
Learning in Higher Education. London; New York: Routledge;
2016. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/
books/e/9781315579641. [Last accessed on 2021 Dec 04].
45. Romanek D, Lynch B. Touch in Museums: Policy and
Practice in Object Handling. first. Routledge: Taylor Francis;
2008. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/
books/9781003135616. [Last accessed on 2021 Dec 04].
46. Biggs JB, Tang CS. Teaching for Quality Learning at University:
What the Student Does. 4th ed. Maidenhead, England New York,
NY: McGraw‑Hill, Society for Research into Higher Education &
Open University Press; 2011.
47. Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in
the Classroom. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human
Development, George Washington University; 1991.
48. Kolb DA, Rubin IM, McIntyre JM. Organizational Psychology:
Readings on Human Behavior in Organizations. Prentice Hall;
1984.
49. Bai J, Wang Y, Zhang P, Liu M, Wang P, Wang J, et al. Efficacy
and safety of 3D print‑assisted surgery for the treatment of
pilon fractures: A meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.
J Orthop Surg Res 2018;13:283.
50. Kong X, Nie L, Zhang H, Wang Z, Ye Q, Tang L, et al. Do
Three‑dimensional visualization and three‑dimensional printing
improve hepatic segment anatomy teaching? A randomized
controlled study. J Surg Educ 2016;73:264‑9.
51. Langridge B, Momin S, Coumbe B, Woin E, Griffin M, Butler P.
Systematic review of the use of 3‑dimensional printing in surgical
teaching and assessment. J Surg Educ 2018;75:209‑21.
52. Ratka A. Empathy and the development of affective skills. AJPE
2018;82:7192. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7192.
53. Khot Z, Quinlan K, Norman GR, Wainman B. The relative
effectiveness of computer-based and traditional resources for
education in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2013;6:211‑5.
54. Fried CB. In‑class laptop use and its effects on student learning.
Comput Educ 2008;50:906‑14.
55. Abarghouie MH, Omid A, Ghadami A. Effects of virtual and
lecture‑based instruction on learning, content retention, and
satisfaction from these instruction methods among surgical
technology students: A comparative study. J Educ Health Promot
2020;9:296. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_634_19.
56. Rajprasath R, Kumar VD, Murugan M, Goriparthi BP, Devi R.
Evaluating the effectiveness of integrating radiological and
cross‑sectional anatomy in first‑year medical students–A
randomized, crossover study. J Educ Health Promot 2020;9:16.
doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_325_19.
)