With more than 10 million patients with cancer in the United States, pain and symptom management is an important topic for oncology nurses. Complementary therapies, such as therapeutic touch, may offer nurses a nonpharmacologic method to ease patients' pain. Using 12 research studies, the authors examined the evidence concerning the effectiveness of this type of treatment in reducing pain and anxiety.
Background 3D printing is a popular technology in many industries secondary to its ability to rapidly produce inexpensive, high fidelity models/products, mainly through layer-by-layer fusion of various substrate materials. In healthcare, 3D printing has garnered interest for its applications in surgery, simulation, education, and medical device development, and 3D printing facilities are now being integrated into hospital-based settings. Yet, little is known regarding the leadership, resources, outputs, and role of these new onsite entities. Methods The purpose of this research was to survey features of North American hospital-based 3D printing facilities to understand their design and utility in anticipation of future expansion. Hospital-based 3D printing labs were recruited through online special interest groups to participate via survey response. Anonymous, voluntary data were collected from 21 facilities over 9 weeks and reported/analyzed in aggregate. Results Of the respondents, > 50% were founded in the past 5 years and 80% in the past decade, indicating recent and rapid growth of such facilities. Labs were most commonly found within large, university-affiliated hospitals/health systems with administration frequently, but not exclusively, through radiology departments, which was shown to enhance collaboration. All groups reported collaborating with other medical specialties/departments and image segmentation as part of the workflow, showing widespread interest in high fidelity, personalized medicine applications. Lab leadership was most often multidisciplinary, with physicians present on nearly all leadership teams. Budgets, personnel, and outputs varied among groups, however, all groups reported engagement in multiple 3D printing applications. Conclusion This preliminary study provides a foundation for understanding the unique nature of hospital-based 3D printing labs. While there is much to learn about such in-house facilities, the data obtained reveal important baseline characteristics. Further research is indicated to validate these early findings and create a detailed picture of the developing infrastructure of 3D printing in healthcare settings.
Background 3D printed models are becoming increasingly popular in healthcare as visual and tactile tools to enhance understanding of anatomy and pathology in medical trainee education, provide procedural simulation training, and guide surgical procedures. Patient-specific 3D models are currently being used preoperatively for trainee medical education in planning surgical approaches and intraoperatively to guide decision-making in several specialties. Our study group utilized a modified Delphi process to create a standardized assessment for trainees using patient-specific 3D models as a tool in medical education during pre-surgical planning. Methods A literature review was conducted to identify survey questions administered to clinicians in published surgical planning studies regarding the use of patient-specific 3D models. A core study team reviewed these questions, removed duplicates, categorized them, mapped them to overarching themes, and, where applicable, modified individual questions into a form generalizable across surgical specialties. The core study panel included a physician, physician-scientist, social scientist, engineer/medical student, and 3D printing lab manager. A modified Delphi process was then used to solicit feedback on the clarity and relevance of the individual questions from an expert panel consisting of 12 physicians from specialties including anesthesiology, emergency medicine, radiology, urology, otolaryngology, and obstetrics/gynecology. When the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)/American College of Radiology (ACR) 3D Printing Registry Data Dictionary was released, additional survey questions were reviewed. A final cross-disciplinary survey of the utility of 3D printed models in surgical planning medical education was developed. Results The literature review identified 100 questions previously published in surveys assessing patient-specific 3D models for surgical planning. Following the review, generalization, and mapping of survey questions from these studies, a list of 24 questions was generated for review by the expert study team. Five additional questions were identified in the RSNA/ACR 3D Printing Registry Data Dictionary and included for review. A final questionnaire consisting of 20 questions was developed. Conclusions As 3D printed models become more common in medical education, the need for standardized assessment is increasingly essential. The standardized questionnaire developed in this study reflects the interests of a variety of stakeholders in patient-specific 3D models across disciplines.
Nasal osteotomy is one of the most challenging steps of rhinoplasty. Lack of hands-on training and confidence with this procedure adds to the complexity for learners and trainees. As three-dimensional (3D) printing becomes increasingly accessible, simulation on 3D printed models has the potential to address this educational need in a safe, reproducible, and clinically realistic manner. The simulation session described in this communication, which utilized our low-cost, 3D-printed nasal osteotomy ($12.37) task trainer, produced both educational and confidence benefits for trainees. Here we describe the design, organization, curriculum, and pilot data for a 3D-printed nasal osteotomy task trainer for the simulation of endonasal and percutaneous nasal osteotomy.
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) printing has been increasingly utilized in the healthcare sector for many applications including guiding surgical procedures, creating medical devices, and producing custom prosthetics. As personalized medicine becomes more accessible and desired, 3D printed models emerge as a potential tool in providing patient-specific education. These personalized 3D models are at the intersection of technological innovation and medical education. Our study group utilized a modified Delphi process to create a comprehensive survey tool assessing patient experience with personalized 3D models in preoperative education.Methods: A rigorous literature review was conducted of prior patient education survey tools in surgical cases across specialties involving personalized 3D printed models. Through categorization and mapping, a core study team reviewed individual questions, removed duplicates, and edited them into generalizable form. A modified Delphi process was then used to solicit feedback on question clarity and relevance from both 3D printing healthcare experts and patients to create a final survey.Results: 173 survey questions from the literature were evaluated by the core study team, yielding 31 unique questions for further review. After multiple rounds of feedback, a final survey containing 18 questions was developed.Conclusion: 3D printed models have the potential to be helpful tools in surgical patient education, and there exists a need to standardize the assessment of patient experience with these models. This survey provides a standardized, generalizable way to investigate the patient experience with personalized 3D-printed models.
Background For difficult or rare procedures, simulation offers an opportunity to provide education and training. In developing an adequate model to utilize in simulation, 3D printing has emerged as a useful technology to provide detailed, accessible, and high-fidelity models. Nasal osteotomy is an essential step in many rhinoplasty surgeries, yet it can be challenging to perform and difficult to receive adequate exposure to this nuanced portion of the procedure. As it currently stands, there are limited opportunities to practice nasal osteotomy due to the reliance on cadaveric bones, which are expensive, difficult to obtain, and require appropriate facilities and personnel. While previous designs have been developed, these models leave room for improvement in printing efficiency, cost, and material performance. This manuscript aims to describe the methodology for the design of an updated nasal osteotomy training model derived from anatomic data and optimized for printability, usability, and fidelity. Additionally, an analysis of multiple commercially available 3D printing materials and technologies was conducted to determine which offered superior equivalency to bone. Methods This model was updated from a first-generation model previously described to include a more usable base and form, reduce irrelevant structures, and optimize geometry for 3D printing, while maintaining the nasal bones with added stabilizers essential for function and fidelity. For the material comparison, this updated model was printed in five materials: Ultimaker Polylactic Acid, 3D Printlife ALGA, 3DXTECH SimuBone, FibreTuff, and FormLabs Durable V2. Facial plastic surgeons tested the models in a blinded, randomized fashion and completed surveys assessing tactile feedback, audio feedback, material limitation, and overall value. Results A model optimizing printability while maintaining quality in the area of interest was developed. In the material comparison, SimuBone emerged as the top choice amongst the evaluating physicians in an experience-based subjective comparison to human bone during a simulated osteotomy procedure using the updated model. Conclusion The updated midface model that was user-centered, low-cost, and printable was designed. In material testing, Simubone was rated above other materials to have a more realistic feel.
Background Three-dimensional printing is an underutilized technology in ophthalmology training; its use must be explored in complex educational scenarios. This study described a novel approach to trainee education of orbital fracture repair utilizing three-dimensional (3D) printed models as a teaching tool. Methods Ophthalmology residents and oculoplastic fellows from multiple training institutions underwent an educational session on orbital fractures, learning through four different models. Participants analyzed orbital fractures through computerized tomography (CT) imaging alone and then utilizing CT imaging with the aid of a 3D printed model. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their understanding of the fracture pattern and surgical approach. After the training, participants were surveyed on the impact of the educational session. Components of the training were rated by participants on a 5-point Likert scale. Results A statistically significant difference (p < .05) was found in participant confidence conceptualizing the anatomic boundaries of the fracture and planning the orbital fracture approach for repair of three out of four models on pre-test post-test analysis. On exit questionnaire, 84.3% of participants thought the models were a useful tool for surgical planning, 94.8% of participants thought the models were a useful tool for conceptualizing the anatomic boundaries of the fracture, 94.8% of participants thought the models were a useful tool for orbital fracture training, and 89.5% of participants thought the exercise was helpful. Conclusion This study supports the value of 3D printed models of orbital fractures as an effective tool for ophthalmology trainee education to improve understanding and visualization of complex anatomical space and pathology. Given the limited opportunities trainees may have for hands-on orbital fracture practice, 3D printed models provide an accessible way to enhance training.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.