4.5 Review

3D-Printed Models for Temporal Bone Surgical Training: A Systematic Review

Journal

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
Volume 165, Issue 5, Pages 617-625

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0194599821993384

Keywords

3D printing; additive manufacturing; rapid prototyping; temporal bone; surgical simulation; training; education; otology; neurotology

Funding

  1. Independent Research Fund Denmark [8026-00003B]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The systematic review found 36 eligible studies on 3D-printed temporal bone models for surgical training. Most studies reported positive attitudes towards the models and their potential for training, but the overall quality of educational evidence was low, with most studies relying on expert and/or trainee opinion for evaluation.
Objective 3D-printed models hold great potential for temporal bone surgical training as a supplement to cadaveric dissection. Nevertheless, critical knowledge on manufacturing remains scattered, and little is known about whether use of these models improves surgical performance. This systematic review aims to explore (1) methods used for manufacturing and (2) how educational evidence supports using 3D-printed temporal bone models. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Review Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, relevant studies were identified and data on manufacturing and validation and/or training extracted by 2 reviewers. Quality assessment was performed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument tool; educational outcomes were determined according to Kirkpatrick's model. Results The search yielded 595 studies; 36 studies were found eligible and included for analysis. The described 3D-printed models were based on computed tomography scans from patients or cadavers. Processing included manual segmentation of key structures such as the facial nerve; postprocessing, for example, consisted of removal of print material inside the model. Overall, educational quality was low, and most studies evaluated their models using only expert and/or trainee opinion (ie, Kirkpatrick level 1). Most studies reported positive attitudes toward the models and their potential for training. Conclusion Manufacturing and use of 3D-printed temporal bones for surgical training are widely reported in the literature. However, evidence to support their use and knowledge about both manufacturing and the effects on subsequent surgical performance are currently lacking. Therefore, stronger educational evidence and manufacturing knowhow are needed for widespread implementation of 3D-printed temporal bones in surgical curricula.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available