David Chen, Aravinda Ganapathy, Nihil Abraham, Kaitlin M Marquis, Grace L Bishop, Frank J Rybicki, Mark J Hoegger, David H Ballard
{"title":"3D printing exposure and perception in radiology residency: survey results of radiology chief residents.","authors":"David Chen, Aravinda Ganapathy, Nihil Abraham, Kaitlin M Marquis, Grace L Bishop, Frank J Rybicki, Mark J Hoegger, David H Ballard","doi":"10.1186/s41205-023-00173-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study is to summarize a survey of radiology chief residents focused on 3D printing in radiology.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An online survey was distributed to chief residents in North American radiology residencies by subgroups of the Association of University Radiologists. The survey included a subset of questions focused on the clinical use of 3D printing and perceptions of the role of 3D printing and radiology. Respondents were asked to define the role of 3D printing at their institution and asked about the potential role of clinical 3D printing in radiology and radiology residencies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>152 individual responses from 90 programs were provided, with a 46% overall program response rate (n = 90/194 radiology residencies). Most programs had 3D printing at their institution (60%; n = 54/90 programs). Among the institutions that perform 3D printing, 33% (n = 18/54) have structured opportunities for resident contribution. Most residents (60%; n = 91/152 respondents) feel they would benefit from 3D printing exposure or educational material. 56% of residents (n = 84/151) believed clinical 3D printing should be centered in radiology departments. 22% of residents (n = 34/151) believed it would increase communication and improve relationships between radiology and surgery colleagues. A minority (5%; 7/151) believe 3D printing is too costly, time-consuming, or outside a radiologist's scope of practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A majority of surveyed chief residents in accredited radiology residencies believe they would benefit from exposure to 3D printing in residency. 3D printing education and integration would be a valuable addition to current radiology residency program curricula.</p>","PeriodicalId":72036,"journal":{"name":"3D printing in medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10133904/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"3D printing in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-023-00173-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Rationale and objectives: The purpose of this study is to summarize a survey of radiology chief residents focused on 3D printing in radiology.
Materials and methods: An online survey was distributed to chief residents in North American radiology residencies by subgroups of the Association of University Radiologists. The survey included a subset of questions focused on the clinical use of 3D printing and perceptions of the role of 3D printing and radiology. Respondents were asked to define the role of 3D printing at their institution and asked about the potential role of clinical 3D printing in radiology and radiology residencies.
Results: 152 individual responses from 90 programs were provided, with a 46% overall program response rate (n = 90/194 radiology residencies). Most programs had 3D printing at their institution (60%; n = 54/90 programs). Among the institutions that perform 3D printing, 33% (n = 18/54) have structured opportunities for resident contribution. Most residents (60%; n = 91/152 respondents) feel they would benefit from 3D printing exposure or educational material. 56% of residents (n = 84/151) believed clinical 3D printing should be centered in radiology departments. 22% of residents (n = 34/151) believed it would increase communication and improve relationships between radiology and surgery colleagues. A minority (5%; 7/151) believe 3D printing is too costly, time-consuming, or outside a radiologist's scope of practice.
Conclusions: A majority of surveyed chief residents in accredited radiology residencies believe they would benefit from exposure to 3D printing in residency. 3D printing education and integration would be a valuable addition to current radiology residency program curricula.