Medical students -- Training, Medical students -- Models, Rapid prototyping -- Models, Education -- Methods, and Education -- Models
Byline: Michael K. O'Reilly, Sven Reese, Therese Herlihy, Tony Geoghegan, Colin P. Cantwell, Robin N.M. Feeney, James F.X. Jones Keywords: gross anatomy education; radiology education; residency training; 3D imaging techniques; 3D printing; rapid prototyping; ultrasound simulation; low-fidelity simulation models; anatomical sciences; digital anatomy For centuries, cadaveric dissection has been the touchstone of anatomy education. It offers a medical student intimate access to his or her first patient. In contrast to idealized artisan anatomical models, it presents the natural variation of anatomy in fine detail. However, a new teaching construct has appeared recently in which artificial cadavers are manufactured through three-dimensional (3D) printing of patient specific radiological data sets. In this article, a simple powder based printer is made more versatile to manufacture hard bones, silicone muscles and perfusable blood vessels. The approach involves blending modern approaches (3D printing) with more ancient ones (casting and lost-wax techniques). These anatomically accurate models can augment the approach to anatomy teaching from dissection to synthesis of 3D-printed parts held together with embedded rare earth magnets. Vascular simulation is possible through application of pumps and artificial blood. The resulting arteries and veins can be cannulated and imaged with Doppler ultrasound. In some respects, 3D-printed anatomy is superior to older teaching methods because the parts are cheap, scalable, they can cover the entire age span, they can be both dissected and reassembled and the data files can be printed anywhere in the world and mass produced. Anatomical diversity can be collated as a digital repository and reprinted rather than waiting for the rare variant to appear in the dissection room. It is predicted that 3D printing will revolutionize anatomy when poly-material printing is perfected in the early 21st century. Anat Sci Educ. [c] 2015 American Association of Anatomists.
Medical students -- Analysis, 3D printing -- Analysis, Education -- Analysis, Human anatomy -- Analysis, Medical personnel -- Training, Medical personnel -- Analysis, Teaching -- Equipment and supplies, Teaching -- Usage, and Teaching -- Analysis
Byline: Kah Heng Alexander Lim, Zhou Yaw Loo, Stephen J. Goldie, Justin W. Adams, Paul G. McMenamin Keywords: gross anatomy education; medical education; human anatomy; cadavers; image processing; 3D printing; rapid prototyping; additive manufacturing; anatomical models Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology capable of readily producing accurate anatomical models, however, evidence for the use of 3D prints in medical education remains limited. A study was performed to assess their effectiveness against cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. A double blind randomized controlled trial was undertaken on undergraduate medical students without prior formal cardiac anatomy teaching. Following a pre-test examining baseline external cardiac anatomy knowledge, participants were randomly assigned to three groups who underwent self-directed learning sessions using either cadaveric materials, 3D prints, or a combination of cadaveric materials/3D prints (combined materials). Participants were then subjected to a post-test written by a third party. Fifty-two participants completed the trial; 18 using cadaveric materials, 16 using 3D models, and 18 using combined materials. Age and time since completion of high school were equally distributed between groups. Pre-test scores were not significantly different (P=0.231), however, post-test scores were significantly higher for 3D prints group compared to the cadaveric materials or combined materials groups (mean of 60.83% vs. 44.81% and 44.62%, P=0.010, adjusted P=0.012). A significant improvement in test scores was detected for the 3D prints group (P=0.003) but not for the other two groups. The finding of this pilot study suggests that use of 3D prints do not disadvantage students relative to cadaveric materials; maximally, results suggest that 3D may confer certain benefits to anatomy learning and supports their use and ongoing evaluation as supplements to cadaver-based curriculums. Anat Sci Educ 9: 213-221. [c] 2015 American Association of Anatomists. Supporting information: Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. CAPTION(S): Supporting Information
Byline: Daniel Preece, Sarah B. Williams, Richard Lam, Renate Weller Keywords: gross anatomy; physical models; teaching methods; veterinary anatomy education; veterinary imaging; horse; MRI; rapid prototyping Three-dimensional (3D) information plays an important part in medical and veterinary education. Appreciating complex 3D spatial relationships requires a strong foundational understanding of anatomy and mental 3D visualization skills. Novel learning resources have been introduced to anatomy training to achieve this. Objective evaluation of their comparative efficacies remains scarce in the literature. This study developed and evaluated the use of a physical model in demonstrating the complex spatial relationships of the equine foot. It was hypothesized that the newly developed physical model would be more effective for students to learn magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) anatomy of the foot than textbooks or computer-based 3D models. Third year veterinary medicine students were randomly assigned to one of three teaching aid groups (physical model; textbooks; 3D computer model). The comparative efficacies of the three teaching aids were assessed through students' abilities to identify anatomical structures on MR images. Overall mean MRI assessment scores were significantly higher in students utilizing the physical model (86.39%) compared with students using textbooks (62.61%) and the 3D computer model (63.68%) (P < 0.001), with no significant difference between the textbook and 3D computer model groups (P = 0.685). Student feedback was also more positive in the physical model group compared with both the textbook and 3D computer model groups. Our results suggest that physical models may hold a significant advantage over alternative learning resources in enhancing visuospatial and 3D understanding of complex anatomical architecture, and that 3D computer models have significant limitations with regards to 3D learning. Anat Sci Educ 6: 216-224. A[c] 2013 American Association of Anatomists. Author Affiliation: