Comparative effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) vs 3D printed models of congenital heart disease in resident and nurse practitioner educational experience.

3D printed models Congenital heart disease Education Virtual reality

Journal

3D printing in medicine
ISSN: 2365-6271
Titre abrégé: 3D Print Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721758

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Feb 2023
Historique:
received: 12 10 2022
accepted: 13 12 2022
entrez: 11 2 2023
pubmed: 12 2 2023
medline: 12 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Medical trainees frequently note that cardiac anatomy is difficult to conceive within a two dimensional framework. The specific anatomic defects and the subsequent pathophysiology in flow dynamics may become more apparent when framed in three dimensional models. Given the evidence of improved comprehension using such modeling, this study aimed to contribute further to that understanding by comparing Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printed models (3DP) in medical education. We sought to systematically compare the perceived subjective effectiveness of Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printed models (3DP) in the educational experience of residents and nurse practitioners. Trainees and practitioners underwent individual 15-minute teaching sessions in which features of a developmentally typical heart as well as a congenitally diseased heart were demonstrated using both Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printed models (3DP). Participants then briefly explored each modality before filling out a short survey in which they identified which model (3DP or VR) they felt was more effective in enhancing their understanding of cardiac anatomy and associated pathophysiology. The survey included a binary summative assessment and a series of Likert scale questions addressing usefulness of each model type and degree of comfort with each modality. Twenty-seven pediatric residents and 3 nurse practitioners explored models of a developmentally typical heart and tetralogy of Fallot pathology. Most participants had minimal prior exposure to VR (1.1 ± 0.4) or 3D printed models (2.1 ± 1.5). Participants endorsed a greater degree of understanding with VR models (8.5 ± 1) compared with 3D Printed models (6.3 ± 1.8) or traditional models of instruction (5.5 ± 1.5) p < 0.001. Most participants felt comfortable with modern technology (7.6 ± 2.1). 87% of participants preferred VR over 3DP. Our study shows that, overall, VR was preferred over 3DP models by pediatric residents and nurse practitioners for understanding cardiac anatomy and pathophysiology.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Medical trainees frequently note that cardiac anatomy is difficult to conceive within a two dimensional framework. The specific anatomic defects and the subsequent pathophysiology in flow dynamics may become more apparent when framed in three dimensional models. Given the evidence of improved comprehension using such modeling, this study aimed to contribute further to that understanding by comparing Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printed models (3DP) in medical education.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
We sought to systematically compare the perceived subjective effectiveness of Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printed models (3DP) in the educational experience of residents and nurse practitioners.
METHODS METHODS
Trainees and practitioners underwent individual 15-minute teaching sessions in which features of a developmentally typical heart as well as a congenitally diseased heart were demonstrated using both Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printed models (3DP). Participants then briefly explored each modality before filling out a short survey in which they identified which model (3DP or VR) they felt was more effective in enhancing their understanding of cardiac anatomy and associated pathophysiology. The survey included a binary summative assessment and a series of Likert scale questions addressing usefulness of each model type and degree of comfort with each modality.
RESULTS RESULTS
Twenty-seven pediatric residents and 3 nurse practitioners explored models of a developmentally typical heart and tetralogy of Fallot pathology. Most participants had minimal prior exposure to VR (1.1 ± 0.4) or 3D printed models (2.1 ± 1.5). Participants endorsed a greater degree of understanding with VR models (8.5 ± 1) compared with 3D Printed models (6.3 ± 1.8) or traditional models of instruction (5.5 ± 1.5) p < 0.001. Most participants felt comfortable with modern technology (7.6 ± 2.1). 87% of participants preferred VR over 3DP.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our study shows that, overall, VR was preferred over 3DP models by pediatric residents and nurse practitioners for understanding cardiac anatomy and pathophysiology.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36773171
doi: 10.1186/s41205-022-00164-6
pii: 10.1186/s41205-022-00164-6
pmc: PMC9918815
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

2

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Nov;13(11):1717-1725
pubmed: 30043197
3D Print Med. 2015;2(1):3
pubmed: 30050975
Congenit Heart Dis. 2018 May;13(3):357-361
pubmed: 29399969
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2020 Jan;35(1):37-41
pubmed: 31644471
World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2016 May;7(3):344-50
pubmed: 27142402
Lancet. 2010 Dec 4;376(9756):1923-58
pubmed: 21112623
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 24;10(9):e036853
pubmed: 32973056
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Nov 21;100(22):1960-1968
pubmed: 30480600
Am J Pharm Educ. 2019 Apr;83(3):7456
pubmed: 31065173
Prog Pediatr Cardiol. 2020 Dec;59:101305
pubmed: 33071529
Heart Lung Circ. 2021 Feb;30(2):296-302
pubmed: 32863113
Nurse Educ Today. 2019 Aug;79:14-19
pubmed: 31078869
Biomolecules. 2021 Jun 14;11(6):
pubmed: 34198642
JMIR Cardio. 2020 Dec 8;4(1):e20633
pubmed: 33289675
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Jul;37(7):2283-2290
pubmed: 33677745
J Card Surg. 2021 Jul;36(7):2598-2602
pubmed: 33760302
Future Cardiol. 2020 Nov;16(6):695-709
pubmed: 32628520
Heart. 2020 Nov;106(21):1631-1637
pubmed: 32727918
Cardiol Young. 2020 Jun;30(6):903-904
pubmed: 32389137
Pediatr Radiol. 2020 Oct;50(11):1617-1623
pubmed: 32681236
Heliyon. 2019 Nov 14;5(11):e02583
pubmed: 31840112
Congenit Heart Dis. 2017 Sep;12(5):578-582
pubmed: 28608434
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016 Dec;13(12):701-718
pubmed: 27786234
Korean J Radiol. 2020 Feb;21(2):133-145
pubmed: 31997589
Cell Rep Med. 2021 Jul 21;2(7):100348
pubmed: 34337564
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Mar 11;17(1):54
pubmed: 28284205

Auteurs

Jonathan Awori (J)

Division of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA. Jonathan.awori@gmail.com.

Seth D Friedman (SD)

Division of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.

Christopher Howard (C)

Division of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.

Richard Kronmal (R)

Division of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.

Sujatha Buddhe (S)

Division of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.

Classifications MeSH