The efficacy of three-dimensional printing for plastic surgery education: a narrative review
Jevan Cevik , Omar Shadid , Alice Hornby , Siyuan Pang , Omar Salehi , Ishith Seth , Warren M. Rozen
Plastic and Aesthetic Research ›› 2024, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (1) : 39
The efficacy of three-dimensional printing for plastic surgery education: a narrative review
Three-dimensional (3D) printed models offer potential advantages over traditional teaching methods by providing realistic, tactile learning aids. The overall efficacy of 3D printing in plastic surgery education has not been previously systematically analysed. A review of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to October 2023 identified studies using 3D printed models in plastic surgery education. Inclusion criteria were set to select before-after studies or studies comparing 3D printed models to traditional teaching methods. Outcome measures included Likert scales, Multiple choice quest tests or other scoring systems. 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. Learners demonstrated enhanced anatomical understanding and procedural knowledge after engaging with 3D models. The comparative studies included in the review further highlight the superiority of 3D models over traditional learning tools, with average increases in test scores and procedural confidence, quantified through Likert scales and multiple-choice questionnaires. Ultimately, the findings of this review suggest that 3D printing enhances learning, making educational experiences more interactive and effective than traditional methods. While costs, accessibility, and a lack of technical expertise may pose challenges, integrating 3D models into training could enhance plastic surgical education. High-quality randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm these findings and standardise outcomes for broader applications.
3D printing / three-dimensional / education / plastic surgery
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. PMCID:PMC3196245 |
| [19] |
National Institute of Health. Study quality assessment tools. Available from: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools. [Last accessed on 14 Aug 2024] |
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |