Systematic review of three-dimensional printing for simulation training of interventional radiology trainees

Abstract

Rationale and objectives Three-dimensional (3D) printing has been utilized as a means of producing high-quality simulation models for trainees in procedure-intensive or surgical subspecialties. However, less is known about its role for trainee education within interventional radiology (IR). Thus, the purpose of this review was to assess the state of current literature regarding the use of 3D printed simulation models in IR procedural simulation experiences. Materials and methods A literature query was conducted through April 2020 for articles discussing three-dimensional printing for simulations in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library databases using key terms relating to 3D printing, radiology, simulation, training, and interventional radiology. Results We identified a scarcity of published sources, 4 total articles, that appraised the use of three-dimensional printing for simulation training in IR. While trainee feedback is generally supportive of the use of three-dimensional printing within the field, current applications utilizing 3D printed models are heterogeneous, reflecting a lack of best practices standards in the realm of medical education. Conclusions Presently available literature endorses the use of three-dimensional printing within interventional radiology as a teaching tool. Literature documenting the benefits of 3D printed models for IR simulation has the potential to expand within the field, as it offers a straightforward, sustainable, and reproducible means for hands-on training that ought to be standardized.

A Meta-Review about Medical 3D Printing

“…Non-invasive devices are external applications, like 3DP models. The medical fields included are anesthesia [1], cardiology [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], coloproctology [14], dentistry [15][16][17][18], general surgery [19][20][21][22][23][24][25], health care engineering [26,27], hepatology [28], interventional radiology [29], medical education [30][31][32][33][34], neurosurgery [35][36][37][38][39], oncology [40][41][42][43] and radiation oncology [44][45][46]. Further medical fields included are oral and maxillofacial surgery [47][48][49]<...…”

The ultrasound use of simulators, current view, and perspectives: Requirements and technical aspects (WFUMB state of the art paper)

“…[ 131 ] Tenewitz et al . reported the use of 3D printing to develop ultrasound phantoms for vascular access and biopsy[ 132 ] whilst other studies have been undertaken to determine the value of augmented reality in ultrasound education. [ 133 , 134 ] Nilsson et al , warn that careful evaluation of new technology is needed to determine cost-effectiveness as a learning resource.…”

Development and implementation of a three‐dimensional (3D) printing elective course for health science students

“…Three‐dimensional (3D) printing has rapidly evolved from a niche hobby to widespread adoption, with everything from human organs (Badwaik, 2019) to houses (Orrall, 2020) now being printed. There has been a simultaneous increase in adoption and interest in 3D printing, specifically within health science disciplines (McMenamin et al, 2014; Tenewitz et al, 2021). Advances in healthcare have led to a need for health science professionals to become familiar with these technologies for patient care simulation, organ printing, procedural planning for surgeries, orthopedics, interventional radiology, pathology, and patient education (Biglino et al, 2015, 2017; Milano et al, 2019; McMenamin et al, 2021; Tenewitz et al, 2021).…”

“…There has been a simultaneous increase in adoption and interest in 3D printing, specifically within health science disciplines (McMenamin et al, 2014; Tenewitz et al, 2021). Advances in healthcare have led to a need for health science professionals to become familiar with these technologies for patient care simulation, organ printing, procedural planning for surgeries, orthopedics, interventional radiology, pathology, and patient education (Biglino et al, 2015, 2017; Milano et al, 2019; McMenamin et al, 2021; Tenewitz et al, 2021). The quality of 3D printing materials has improved dramatically; in fact, some institutions have supplemented cadaveric laboratory teaching with 3D printed anatomical models (McMenamin et al, 2014; Tanner et al, 2020) and have created archives of 3D printed pathologic specimens for education (McMenamin et al, 2021).…”