Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display.
- 3D-display
- 3D-print
- 3D-screen
- VR-glasses
- education
- three dimensional
Journal
3D printing in medicine
ISSN: 2365-6271
Titre abrégé: 3D Print Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721758
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Jan 2022
30 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
30
07
2021
accepted:
17
01
2022
entrez:
30
1
2022
pubmed:
31
1
2022
medline:
31
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare different methods of three-dimensional representations, namely 3D-Print, Virtual Reality (VR)-Glasses and 3D-Display regarding the understanding of the pathology, accuracy of details, quality of the anatomical representation and technical operability and assessment of possible change in treatment in different disciplines and levels of professional experience. Interviews were conducted with twenty physicians from the disciplines of cardiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthopedic surgery, and radiology between 2018 and 2020 at the University Hospital of Basel. They were all presented with three different three-dimensional clinical cases derived from CT data from their area of expertise, one case for each method. During this, the physicians were asked for their feedback written down on a pencil and paper questionnaire. Concerning the understanding of the pathology and quality of the anatomical representation, VR-Glasses were rated best in three out of four disciplines and two out of three levels of professional experience. Regarding the accuracy of details, 3D-Display was rated best in three out of four disciplines and all levels of professional experience. As to operability, 3D-Display was consistently rated best in all levels of professional experience and all disciplines. Possible change in treatment was reported using 3D-Print in 33%, VR-Glasses in 44%, and 3D-Display in 33% of participants. Physicians with a professional experience of more than ten years reported no change in treatment using any method. 3D-Print, VR-Glasses, and 3D-Displays are very well accepted, and a relevant percentage of participants with less than ten years of professional work experience could imagine a possible change in treatment using any of these three-dimensional methods. Our findings challenge scientists, technicians, and physicians to further develop these methods to improve the three-dimensional understanding of pathologies and to add value to the education of young and inexperienced physicians.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To compare different methods of three-dimensional representations, namely 3D-Print, Virtual Reality (VR)-Glasses and 3D-Display regarding the understanding of the pathology, accuracy of details, quality of the anatomical representation and technical operability and assessment of possible change in treatment in different disciplines and levels of professional experience.
METHODS
METHODS
Interviews were conducted with twenty physicians from the disciplines of cardiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthopedic surgery, and radiology between 2018 and 2020 at the University Hospital of Basel. They were all presented with three different three-dimensional clinical cases derived from CT data from their area of expertise, one case for each method. During this, the physicians were asked for their feedback written down on a pencil and paper questionnaire.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Concerning the understanding of the pathology and quality of the anatomical representation, VR-Glasses were rated best in three out of four disciplines and two out of three levels of professional experience. Regarding the accuracy of details, 3D-Display was rated best in three out of four disciplines and all levels of professional experience. As to operability, 3D-Display was consistently rated best in all levels of professional experience and all disciplines. Possible change in treatment was reported using 3D-Print in 33%, VR-Glasses in 44%, and 3D-Display in 33% of participants. Physicians with a professional experience of more than ten years reported no change in treatment using any method.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
3D-Print, VR-Glasses, and 3D-Displays are very well accepted, and a relevant percentage of participants with less than ten years of professional work experience could imagine a possible change in treatment using any of these three-dimensional methods. Our findings challenge scientists, technicians, and physicians to further develop these methods to improve the three-dimensional understanding of pathologies and to add value to the education of young and inexperienced physicians.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35094166
doi: 10.1186/s41205-022-00133-z
pii: 10.1186/s41205-022-00133-z
pmc: PMC8801110
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Ital J Pediatr. 2019 Dec 30;45(1):171
pubmed: 31888710
Games Health J. 2013 Feb;2(1):34-8
pubmed: 26196552
J Craniofac Surg. 2017 Jan;28(1):e101-e104
pubmed: 27977484
3D Print Med. 2017;3(1):4
pubmed: 30050981
Adv Healthc Mater. 2018 Sep;7(17):e1800417
pubmed: 30004185
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2019 Dec;233(12):1327-1332
pubmed: 31554483
BMC Oral Health. 2019 Nov 8;19(1):238
pubmed: 31703708
Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2 Suppl):S45-74
pubmed: 25340438
Arch Plast Surg. 2017 May;44(3):179-187
pubmed: 28573091
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Aug;124(2):195-201.e2
pubmed: 31753464
Anal Chem. 2014 Apr 1;86(7):3240-53
pubmed: 24432804
Micromachines (Basel). 2020 Jun 30;11(7):
pubmed: 32629848
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019 Sep;102:743-755
pubmed: 31147046
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017 Oct;7(10):1006-1013
pubmed: 28719062
J Clin Med. 2020 Dec 20;9(12):
pubmed: 33419329
Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Apr;40(2):321-324
pubmed: 29380235
Congenit Heart Dis. 2018 May;13(3):357-361
pubmed: 29399969
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2009;27(4):301-9
pubmed: 19252401
Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Nov;30(9):1323-41
pubmed: 22770690
Acta Radiol. 2020 Sep;61(9):1258-1265
pubmed: 31928346
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Feb;31(2):323-8
pubmed: 25392054
Spine J. 2017 Sep;17(9):1352-1363
pubmed: 28571789
Biomed Eng Online. 2016 Oct 21;15(1):115
pubmed: 27769304
J Med Syst. 2017 May;41(5):76
pubmed: 28326490
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jan;99(1):e18617
pubmed: 31895818
J Orthop Res. 2020 Jul;38(7):1559-1565
pubmed: 32383302
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Sep;57(7):644-648
pubmed: 31204187
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2010 Sep;5(5):549-54
pubmed: 20652646
Acad Radiol. 2018 Jan;25(1):52-65
pubmed: 29030285
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020 Apr;44(2):92-98
pubmed: 32100630
J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:4574172
pubmed: 29065604
J Clin Med. 2020 Mar 17;9(3):
pubmed: 32192099
Discoveries (Craiova). 2016 Dec 31;4(4):e68
pubmed: 32309587
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Aug;73(8):1540-53
pubmed: 25869986
Korean J Radiol. 2016 Mar-Apr;17(2):182-97
pubmed: 26957903
J Digit Imaging. 2019 Feb;32(1):38-53
pubmed: 30215180
Adv Opt Photonics. 2013;5(4):456-535
pubmed: 25530827
Biomaterials. 2020 Jan;226:119536
pubmed: 31648135
Radiology. 1987 Jun;163(3):737-8
pubmed: 3575725
Radiographics. 2015 Nov-Dec;35(7):1965-88
pubmed: 26562233
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2010 Jul;5(4):335-41
pubmed: 20467825