Three-dimensional (3D) printing has become a useful tool within the field of medicine as a way to produce custom anatomical models for teaching, surgical planning, and patient education. This technology is quickly becoming a key component in simulation-based medical education (SBME) to teach hands-on spatial perception and tactile feedback. Within fields such as interventional radiology (IR), this approach to SBME is also thought to be an ideal instructional method, providing an accurate and economical means to study human anatomy and vasculature. Such anatomical details can be extracted from patient-specific and anonymized CT or MRI scans for the purpose of teaching or analyzing patient-specific anatomy. There is evidence that 3D printing in IR can also optimize procedural training, so learners can rehearse procedures under fluoroscopy while receiving immediate supervisory feedback. Such training advancements in IR hold the potential to reduce procedural operating time, thus reducing the amount of time a patient is exposed to radiation and anaesthetia. Using a program evaluation approach, the purpose of this technical report is to describe the development and application of 3D-printed vasculature models within a radiology interest group to determine their efficacy as supplementary learning tools to traditional, lecture-based teaching. The study involved 30 medical students of varying years in their education, involved in the interest group at Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN). The session was one hour in length and began with a Powerpoint presentation demonstrating the insertion of guide wires and stents using 3D-printed vasculature models. Participants had the opportunity to use the models to attempt several procedures demonstrated during the lecture. These attempts were supervised by an educational expert/facilitator. A survey was completed by all 30 undergraduate medical students and returned to the facilitators, who compiled the quantitative data to evaluate the efficacy of the 3D-printed models as an adjunct to the traditional didactic teaching within IR. The majority of feedback was positive, supporting the use of 3D=printed vasculature as an additional tactile training method for medical students within an IR academic setting. The hands-on experience provides a valuable training approach, with more opportunities for the rehearsal of high-acuity, low-occurrence (HALO) procedures performed in IR.

No abstract

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a serious medical condition that requires invasive surgery or endovascular treatment with stent grafts. This procedure is primarily carried out by vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists. Current methods of educating patients about their procedure have been inadequate, causing unnecessary stress in patients who have this condition and seek treatment. In this study, we evaluate a three-dimensionally (3D) printed AAA model to use as an adjunct patient education tool, thus allowing patients to make a more knowledgeable decision when providing informed consent. The physical attributes and realism of the model are evaluated through the use of a quantitative and qualitative survey completed by physicians at St. Clare's Mercy Hospital in St. John's, Newfoundland. These physicians are referred to as "Experts" in our study and also rate and comment on the necessity of having patient-specific versus generic 3D AAA models for patient education purposes. The aim of this study is to determine whether our 3D printed AAA model is ready to be used as an adjunct patient education tool and to seek suggestions for improvements that can be made in the model. Furthermore, having generic 3D AAA models would significantly decrease healthcare costs as compared to patient-specific models. Thus, we also investigate if generic models would suffice from the perspective of the physicians.

Purpose: Paclitaxel-coated devices have been increasingly used in endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal disease as they limit recurrence of lesions and improve patient outcomes. However, a recent meta-analysis reported that these devices increase mortality risk at 2 years post-intervention but did not account for confounding variables. Therefore, our goal was to evaluate mortality after paclitaxel treatment of femoropopliteal disease using patient-level data. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who received endovascular treatment for femoropopliteal lesions at our center between December 2009 and July 2017. There were 388 patients in the paclitaxel group and 314 control patients. Results: Survival analysis with hazard ratios showed no difference between mortality in the paclitaxel and control groups. Age, renal insufficiency, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia were significant predictors of mortality. We also used logistic regression to evaluate mortality at 1, 2, and 5 years post-intervention and found no difference between the paclitaxel and control groups at any time point, while age, renal insufficiency, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia at the time of intervention were all associated with the risk of death. Finally, we tallied the causes of death in our cohort and found no difference in the distribution of causes between groups. Conclusion: Our single-center, retrospective study provides no evidence of increased risk of death with paclitaxel treatment in femoropopliteal disease. Contrastingly, age, renal insufficiency, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia were the most important factors contributing to mortality and therefore should be included as potential confounders in future studies assessing mortality in femoropopliteal disease.

No abstract