Standardizing evaluation of patient-specific 3D printed models in surgical planning: development of a cross-disciplinary survey tool for physician and trainee feedback

Abstract

Background 3D printed models are becoming increasingly popular in healthcare as visual and tactile tools to enhance understanding of anatomy and pathology in medical trainee education, provide procedural simulation training, and guide surgical procedures. Patient-specific 3D models are currently being used preoperatively for trainee medical education in planning surgical approaches and intraoperatively to guide decision-making in several specialties. Our study group utilized a modified Delphi process to create a standardized assessment for trainees using patient-specific 3D models as a tool in medical education during pre-surgical planning. Methods A literature review was conducted to identify survey questions administered to clinicians in published surgical planning studies regarding the use of patient-specific 3D models. A core study team reviewed these questions, removed duplicates, categorized them, mapped them to overarching themes, and, where applicable, modified individual questions into a form generalizable across surgical specialties. The core study panel included a physician, physician-scientist, social scientist, engineer/medical student, and 3D printing lab manager. A modified Delphi process was then used to solicit feedback on the clarity and relevance of the individual questions from an expert panel consisting of 12 physicians from specialties including anesthesiology, emergency medicine, radiology, urology, otolaryngology, and obstetrics/gynecology. When the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)/American College of Radiology (ACR) 3D Printing Registry Data Dictionary was released, additional survey questions were reviewed. A final cross-disciplinary survey of the utility of 3D printed models in surgical planning medical education was developed. Results The literature review identified 100 questions previously published in surveys assessing patient-specific 3D models for surgical planning. Following the review, generalization, and mapping of survey questions from these studies, a list of 24 questions was generated for review by the expert study team. Five additional questions were identified in the RSNA/ACR 3D Printing Registry Data Dictionary and included for review. A final questionnaire consisting of 20 questions was developed. Conclusions As 3D printed models become more common in medical education, the need for standardized assessment is increasingly essential. The standardized questionnaire developed in this study reflects the interests of a variety of stakeholders in patient-specific 3D models across disciplines.

Developing tuneable viscoelastic silicone gel-based inks for precise 3D printing of clinical phantoms

“…As expected, viscoelastic moduli of cartilage are higher than those of muscle, and those of muscle are higher than those of kidney and brain. Soft tissues' value of elastic modulus ranging from 0.1 kPa to 10.000 kPa have been described in other studies 2 being the brain the organ with the lowest mechanical properties and the muscle, the tissue with one of the highest. Thus, the values obtained in our study match the recent bibliography on this topic.…”

“…1 These models accurately simulate biological structures, providing surgeons with a safe environment to practice and fine-tune their skills, as well as providing a versatile platform for training and testing. 2 In addition, tissue and organ phantoms are cost-effective, 3 easier to manipulate than traditional tools such as virtual reality, and more ethical and precise than animal models. 4 Particularly, 3D-printed tissue and organ phantoms are rapidly gaining popularity in the medical field, 5 with a growing number of research studies and clinical trials highlighting their potential to revolutionize surgical planning [6][7][8][9][10] and practice.…”

3D printing in orthopedics and musculoskeletal birth defects: From surgical planning to bone-disease approach

“…It is now seamlessly integrated into and reshaping surgical practices and training. In the orthopedic field, this technology has an important impact due to bone's higher density, allowing for optimal imaging segmentation and 3D modeling (8). However, experts in diverse fields, whether focusing on bones or soft tissues, can leverage 3D printing for pre-procedural planning, education, training, simulation, or practice before complex, rare, or high-risk procedures.…”

Simulation training in urology

“…developed to evaluate the utility and applicability of 3D-printed models [19]. Innovations in 3Dprinting continue to be crucial to developing the next generation of urologists and improving patient outcomes.…”

“…McCabe et al also developed perfusable 3D-printed models for rehearsal operations of robot-assisted transplant nephrectomy [18]. Additionally, assessment tools for presurgical planning have been developed to evaluate the utility and applicability of 3D-printed models [19]. Innovations in 3D-printing continue to be crucial to developing the next generation of urologists and improving patient outcomes.…”