Orthopedic Trainees' Perception of the Educational Utility of Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Anatomical Models: A Questionnaire-Based Observational Study.
{"title":"Orthopedic Trainees' Perception of the Educational Utility of Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Anatomical Models: A Questionnaire-Based Observational Study.","authors":"Xiaoyang Zhou, Kaijun Yi, Yihua Shi","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S534099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional orthopedic teaching methods have inherent limitations in conveying complex three-dimensional anatomical relationships essential for surgical planning and execution. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offers a potential solution to these educational challenges, but systematic evaluation of its specific educational impact in orthopedic residency training remains limited.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the educational efficacy of in-house 3D-printed patient-specific anatomical models in orthopedic training through assessment of three core domains: anatomical comprehension, surgical planning proficiency, and clinical teaching utility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this analytical observational study, paper-based questionnaires were distributed to 145 orthopedic residents at Hubei University of Medicine who participated in clinical teaching sessions using 3D-printed anatomical models between January 2025 and March 2025. Participants rated their experiences on a 10-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 81.4% (n=118). A majority (85.6%) of residents reported enhanced understanding of complex anatomical structures. First-year residents demonstrated higher satisfaction (mean score 7.9) compared to more advanced trainees (mean scores 7.3 and 6.9). Small group settings (4-6 participants) were preferred by 76.3% of respondents. Physical manipulation of models received the highest educational value rating (mean score 8.1). Primary limitations included production time (45.8%), material durability (38.6%), and limited model varieties (35.6%). Nearly half (43.2%) of residents requested more frequent practice sessions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>3D-printed anatomical models significantly enhance orthopedic resident education, particularly for complex structures and junior trainees. Small-group, instructor-guided implementation maximizes educational benefits. When strategically integrated into existing curricula, in-house production enables widespread access across training levels with minimal resource constraints.</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"16 ","pages":"1399-1409"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12345946/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S534099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Traditional orthopedic teaching methods have inherent limitations in conveying complex three-dimensional anatomical relationships essential for surgical planning and execution. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offers a potential solution to these educational challenges, but systematic evaluation of its specific educational impact in orthopedic residency training remains limited.
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the educational efficacy of in-house 3D-printed patient-specific anatomical models in orthopedic training through assessment of three core domains: anatomical comprehension, surgical planning proficiency, and clinical teaching utility.
Methods: In this analytical observational study, paper-based questionnaires were distributed to 145 orthopedic residents at Hubei University of Medicine who participated in clinical teaching sessions using 3D-printed anatomical models between January 2025 and March 2025. Participants rated their experiences on a 10-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results: The response rate was 81.4% (n=118). A majority (85.6%) of residents reported enhanced understanding of complex anatomical structures. First-year residents demonstrated higher satisfaction (mean score 7.9) compared to more advanced trainees (mean scores 7.3 and 6.9). Small group settings (4-6 participants) were preferred by 76.3% of respondents. Physical manipulation of models received the highest educational value rating (mean score 8.1). Primary limitations included production time (45.8%), material durability (38.6%), and limited model varieties (35.6%). Nearly half (43.2%) of residents requested more frequent practice sessions.
Conclusion: 3D-printed anatomical models significantly enhance orthopedic resident education, particularly for complex structures and junior trainees. Small-group, instructor-guided implementation maximizes educational benefits. When strategically integrated into existing curricula, in-house production enables widespread access across training levels with minimal resource constraints.