136 - Systematic Review of Ultrasound-able 3D Printed Models Used for Graduate Medical Education

Poster Board Number: 136
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Taylor Wyatt, MS - The Ohio State University College of Medicine; Derek Harmon, PhD - The Ohio State University College of Medicine

Abstract Body : INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and ultrasound guided procedures are essential across multiple medical specialties. Simulation based training workshops have been shown to improve residents’ comprehension of medical imaging and improve procedural skills. Ultrasound task-trainers (phantoms) provide opportunities for simulation-based workshops but lack anatomical accuracy and can be very costly. Three-dimensional (3D) printed anatomy models have shown to improve residents’ spatial competency when used to visualize structures from two-dimensional images. Advances in 3D printing technology have presented encouraging opportunities for creating ultrasound-able 3D printed models that can be made in house, replacing the need for expensive commercial phantoms.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to identify studies that have created ultrasound-able models by means of 3D printing techniques for resident procedural training. We also aimed to identify how these models were created and which studies showed a significant improvement in resident confidence and procedural competency.
METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed, and EBSCO were searched for literature pertaining to the creation and implementation of ultrasound-able 3D printed models for resident procedural training. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses checklist guided this review. Two researchers reviewed the studies using Covidence and scanned for articles that met the inclusion criteria. The extracted studies were examined to record manufacturing methods, and any quantitative or qualitative results.
RESULTS: 456 articles were identified, of which 421 were excluded from the review based on being irrelevant. 35 studies were assessed for eligibility and 11 total studies were included. Of the 11 studies, 5 used quantitative methods and 10 used qualitative measures with an average population size n=20.8. All qualitative studies showed a positive improvement in procedural skills after the workshop based on self-reported questionnaires. 80% of the quantitative studies showed significant results. Only one study compared a commercial model to a 3D printed phantom and they found there was no significant difference. Most studies used patient computed tomography scans and computer aided design software to design the 3D printed casting molds that were later infilled with ultrasound-able material. These studies documented a 90% reduction in cost when compared to the price of commercial models.
CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing techniques can be a useful tool to create phantom models. This area of research is an emerging field in graduate medical education and more studies need to be conducted to fully understand it’s benefits for training medical professionals.