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.

Background: Liver stiffness measurements can be used to assess liver fibrosis and can be acquired by transient elastography using FibroScan® and with Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse imaging. The study aimed to establish liver stiffness measurement scores using FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse in a chronic hepatitis C cohort and to explore the correlation and agreement between the scores and the factors influencing agreement. Methods: Patients had liver stiffness measurements acquired with FibroScan® (right lobe of liver) and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (right and left lobe of liver). We used Spearman’s correlation to explore the relationship between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. A Bland–Altman plot was used to evaluate bias between the mean percentage differences of FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess how factors such as body mass index, age and gender influenced the agreement between liver stiffness measurements. Results: Bland-Altman showed the average (95% CI) percentage difference between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores was 27.5% (17.8, 37.2), p < 0.001. There was a negative correlation between the average and percentage difference of the FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores ( r (95% CI) = −0.41 (−0.57, −0.21), p < 0.001), thus showing that percentage difference gets smaller for greater FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. Body mass index was the biggest influencing factor on differences between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse ( r = 0.12 (0.01, 0.23), p = 0.05). Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores at segment 5/8 and the left lobe showed good correlation ( r (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.75, 0.89), p < 0.001). Conclusion: FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse had similar predictive values for the assessment of liver stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection; however, the level of agreement varied across lower and higher scores.