Investigating the effectiveness of three‐dimensionally printed anatomical models compared with plastinated human specimens in learning cardiac and neck anatomy: A randomized crossover study

Abstract

Three‐dimensional printing (3DP) technology has been increasingly applied in health profession education. Yet, 3DP anatomical models compared with the plastinated specimens as learning scaffolds are unclear. A randomized‐controlled crossover study was used to evaluate the objective outcomes of 3DP models compared with the plastinated specimens through an introductory lecture and team study for learning relatively simple (cardiac) and complex (neck) anatomies. Given the novel multimaterial and multicolored 3DP models are replicas of the plastinated specimens, it is hypothesized that 3DP models have the same educational benefits to plastinated specimens. This study was conducted in two phases in which participants were randomly assigned to 3DP (n = 31) and plastinated cardiac groups (n = 32) in the first phase, whereas same groups (3DP, n = 15; plastinated, n = 18) used switched materials in the second phase for learning neck anatomy. The pretest, educational activities and posttest were conducted for each phase. Miller's framework was used to assess the cognitive outcomes. There was a significant improvement in students' baseline knowledge by 29.7% and 31.3% for Phase 1; 31.7% and 31.3% for Phase 2 plastinated and 3DP models. Posttest scores for cardiac (plastinated, 3DP mean ± SD: 57.0 ± 13.3 and 60.8 ± 13.6, P = 0.27) and neck (70.3 ± 15.6 and 68.3 ± 9.9, P = 0.68) phases showed no significant difference. In addition, no difference observed when cognitive domains compared for both cases. These results reflect that introductory lecture plus either the plastinated or 3DP modes were effective for learning cardiac and neck anatomy.

Full color 3D printing of anatomical models

“…However, recognition of this varies, as reflected particularly in the inauthentic performance of anatomical structures, the lack of experience of authentic specimens, and the inaccurate expression of structural details and positional relationships (Bartikian et al, 2019;Mogali et al, 2021;Radzi et al, 2020;Ratinam et al, 2019). Given the wide applications of 3D printing technology in surgical navigation, surgical implants, and other settings (Biglino et al, 2017;Ho et al, 2019;Ruiz & Dhaher, 2021), the development of multi-material inkjet printing technology, which can set a specific color and tactile texture for each anatomical structure, promotes students' understanding of morphological structure and tactile perception.…”

“…Studies show that 3D models can express the morphology and spatial adjacency of human body structures adequately and can be manipulated to increase the students' visual space (Garas et al, 2018) and sense of touch (Ghosh, 2017; Herman et al, 2006), reduce the difficulty of acquiring and understanding anatomical knowledge (Manches & O'Malley, 2012), and play a key role in anatomy teaching. However, recognition of this varies, as reflected particularly in the inauthentic performance of anatomical structures, the lack of experience of authentic specimens, and the inaccurate expression of structural details and positional relationships (Bartikian et al, 2019; Mogali et al, 2021; Radzi et al, 2020; Ratinam et al, 2019). Given the wide applications of 3D printing technology in surgical navigation, surgical implants, and other settings (Biglino et al, 2017; Ho et al, 2019; Ruiz & Dhaher, 2021), the development of multi‐material inkjet printing technology, which can set a specific color and tactile texture for each anatomical structure, promotes students' understanding of morphological structure and tactile perception.…”

“…With scientific and technological development, several computer programs such as anatomy teaching systems, digital anatomical specimens, and plasticized specimens have been used in a new anatomy curriculum to substitute for or complement cadaver samples (Estai & Bunt, 2016; Fruhstorfer et al, 2011; Mogali et al, 2021). In particular, three‐dimensional (3D) printing technologies have developed sufficiently to be widely used in anatomy teaching, medical simulation, surgical planning, and doctor–patient communication to optimize knowledge and understanding of structures (Biglino et al, 2017; Radzi et al, 2020; Sheikh & Forster, 2020).…”

Students’ learning experiences of three-dimensional printed models and plastinated specimens: a qualitative analysis

“…Many studies investigated the learning outcomes/efficacy between various types of anatomy tools such as plastinated specimens, 2D images, wet prosections, Anatomage table (Anatomage Inc., San Jose, CA) and 3DP models [11,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. However, depending on the choice of learning tools used between the control and intervention groups, as well as different anatomical regions [14,22], the results varied.…”

“…3DP models are commonly used to supplement conventional teaching and learning methods [14,17,21]. Loke et al, (2017) reported using 3DP models in learning congenital heart disease in pediatric residents [18].…”