The role of three-dimensional printed models of skull in anatomy education: a randomized controlled trail
1.
2. The role of three-dimensional printed
models of skull in anatomy education:
a randomized controlled trail
Safa Abdalhakem Errayes
Published date :03 April 2017
4.259Impact factor :
Shi Chen, Zhouxian Pan, Yanyan Wu, Zhaoqi Gu, Man Li, Ze Liang Yao,
Huijuan Zhu, Yong Wuyang Shui, Zhen Shen, Jun Zhao & Hu
5th year medical student
3. Outline of Presentation
• Introduction.
- Learning and learning efficiency ?
- Randomized control trial as an evaluation tool .
- 3D a Promising teaching technique .
• Research Question.
• Study design.
• Results.
• Discussion.
• Limitations of the study.
• Conclusion.
4. Introduction 1 :
• Learning is the process of gaining knowledge and expertise.
The Adult Learner by Malcolm Knowles
• Learning efficiency :
- Learner performance : measured by test at the end of
lesson.
-Learner mental effort : leaner estimates of topic difficulty.
“ Scale , very easy , easy , difficult “
• Learning efficiency is an educational outcome that needs an
evaluation .
5. :Introduction 2
• Randomized control trail :
- as the gold standard for evidence-based educational
practice .
- the most rigorous way to measure cause effect
relationship .
- solves the evaluation problem by comparing two groups
equivalent in terms of any influential factors , randomizing
allocation of individuals in “ Intervention group , control
group .
6. Introduction 3 :
• 3D printing models has been extensively
used over the last 30 years .
• From basic anatomy , to surgical practice
and advanced research .
• High-quality models with
efficiency equal to or better than cadavers
are promising tools in resolving challenges
associated with ethics and hygiene
associated with dissection.
7. Introduction 4:
• Assessment of 3D models in Anatomy teaching still mostly
limited to subjective evaluation .
• Searching “PUBMED “ : 12 Studies , 3RCTS , No precise
study on basicranial anatomy of skull .
8. Objective of the study
• what is the learning efficiency of 3D printed Models
compared with Cadavers or Atlas ?
10. Study design 2:
• study design : “immediate education effect
examination (IEEE)” with “various question types
(VQT)”.
• study efficiency was reviewed immediately after
various interventions, and both multiple-choice and
labeled recognition question were used in
evaluation.
12. Study design 4 :
• Subjective evaluation : “ Likert scale “:
Enjoyment
Learning
efficiency
Authenticity
Attitude
Intention to
use
13. Results 1:
• Participant demographics:
no statistically significant differences in gender (p = 0.920),
age (p = 0.863), or academic ranking in pre-medical , None of
the participants reported any medical experience outside of
the prescribed medical curriculum.
14. Results 2:
• Pre-test scores:
no statistically significant differences between the three
groups (p = 0.180, 0.132, 0.895) in total score, multiple-choice
question, and lab test respectively .
• Post-test scores :
statistically significant differences in total score and
structure recognition scores between the three groups.
However, no statistically significant differences were seen
in post-test scores of multiple-choice questions.
15. Results 3 :
• Subjective evaluation:
Overall, the responses of 3D and cadaveric skull groups were
more positive than in the atlas group. Positive feedbacks
(85%). By contrast, positive feedbacks were less than (45% ) in
the atlas groups.
16. Discussion 1 :
• 3D printing can serve as an ideal complement to cadaver
studies, to avoid challenges involving specimen acquisition,
sanitation and ethics.
• 3D printing is a cost-effective and convenient tool.
• Post test scores showed that 3D models is superior to 2D
atlases and Cadavers in determining spatial relationships
and assisting students in quick learning of difficult
anatomical structures .
• Major strengths of this study include the stringent
experimental conditions.
17. Discussion 2:
Additional RCTs recommended , both in IEEE pattern or
“long- term education effect examination (LEEE)” pattern are
needed to confirm the efficiency of high-quality 3D printed
models and their possible limitations.
Future studies investigating the role of 3D printing in
medical education should include participants from different
grades and medical colleges.
18. Study limitations :
• The students were highly skilled and competent
in Mathematics and Physics.
• The sample itself may be a source of bias.
• No preliminary experiments were conducted prior to our
study.
• Due to unique experimental features in medical education ,
the study design does not represent a single- or double-
blinded trial.
19. Conclusion :
• 3D printed skulls facilitate basicranial education, especially
in assisting structure recognition, compared with cadaveric
skulls and atlas. Other advantages over cadavers relate to
ethics, cost, hygiene and repaired fragile structures.
• Additional RCTs, both in IEEE or LEEE format, preferably
using a VQT model, are needed to validate 3D printing in
medical education.
