Utility of 3D printed models as adjunct in acetabular fracture teaching for Orthopaedic trainees

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the use of 3-D printed models as compared to didactic lectures in the teaching of acetabular fractures for Orthopaedic trainees. Methods This was a randomised prospective study conducted in a tertiary hospital setting which consisted of 16 Orthopaedic residents. Ten different cases of acetabular fracture patterns were identified and printed as 3-D models. The baseline knowledge of orthopaedic residents regarding acetabular fracture classification and surgical approach was determined by an x-ray based pre-test. Trainees were then randomly assigned into two groups. Group I received only lectures. Group II were additionally provided with 3-D printed models during the lecture. Participants were then assessed for comprehension and retention of teaching. Results Sixteen trainees participated in the trial. Both Group 1 and 2 improved post teaching with a mean score of 2.5 and 1.9 to 4.4 and 6 out of 10 respectively. The post test score for fracture classification and surgical approach were significantly higher for 3-D model group (p < 0.05). Trainees felt that the physical characteristics of the 3-D models were a good representation of acetabular fracture configuration, and should be used routinely for teaching and surgical planning. Conclusion 3-D printed model of real clinical cases have significant educational impact compared to lecture-based learning towards improving young trainees’ understanding of complex acetabular fractures.

Three‐Dimensional Printed Plate Template Versus Hemipelvis Model in Patient‐Specific Plate Preparation for Posterior Wall Acetabular Fractures

“…In this series, despite no clear differences, 3D printing technology was used to find out higher hip‐function scores evaluated by the modified Merle d'Aubigné score and better fracture reduction quality using the Matta radiological criteria within both groups A and B. To our knowledge, the clinical results obtained in this series was similar to previous studies about the application of 3D printing technology in acetabular surgery 11,12,17,20 . However, the 3D printing model is a time‐consuming procedure, the time from injury to surgery in Group B was significantly prolonged than in Group C (10.9 vs. 8.9 days).…”

“…In recent years, computer technology and advanced manufacturing have witnessed rapid development, and 3D printing technology is widely applied for orthopedic trauma for exactly contouring reconstruction plates 8,20–22 . By using the 3D printing‐based pre‐contoured plate for acetabular fracture reduction and plate fixation, Wang et al 22 pointed out that the surgery had less blood loss and shorter surgical time.…”

“…8,[10][11][12]19 In recent years, computer technology and advanced manufacturing have witnessed rapid development, and 3D printing technology is widely applied for orthopedic trauma for exactly contouring reconstruction plates. 8,[20][21][22] By using the 3D printing-based pre-contoured plate for acetabular fracture reduction and plate fixation, Wang et al 22 pointed out that the surgery had less blood loss and shorter surgical time. Compared with traditional intraoperative contouring, Chen et al 10 indicated that there were better clinical outcomes through the application of 3D printing technology and pre-contoured reconstruction plates in acetabular fracture surgery.…”

Current Concepts in the Resection of Bone Tumors Using a Patient-Specific Three-Dimensional Printed Cutting Guide

“…By using a sterile 3D-printed model during the operation, proper orientation of the anatomy can be provided for surgeons and assistants [ 7 , 31 ]. Goyal et al described the utility of education in orthopedic residents using a 3D-printed model [ 32 ]. They compared education with lectures only (Group 1) or lectures with 3D-printed-model guidance (Group 2).…”

“…They compared education with lectures only (Group 1) or lectures with 3D-printed-model guidance (Group 2). The post-test scores for fracture classification and surgical approach were significantly higher in the 3D model group (Group 1 vs. 2: 2.5–6 vs. 4.4–10%; p < 0.05) [ 32 ]. With a better and more accurate understanding of anatomy, surgeons are confident in maintaining a safe surgical margin without compromising important structures [ 33 ].…”