Megha Chandna BS, Sana Siddiqui MD, Dylan Bertoni MD, Marah Sakkal BA, Sara Belko MS, BSE, Maurits Boon MD, Joseph Spiegel MD
{"title":"Comparing cadaveric and 3D-printed laryngeal models in transcutaneous injection laryngoplasty","authors":"Megha Chandna BS, Sana Siddiqui MD, Dylan Bertoni MD, Marah Sakkal BA, Sara Belko MS, BSE, Maurits Boon MD, Joseph Spiegel MD","doi":"10.1002/lio2.1305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>There is increasing focus on the development of high-quality simulation models for medical education. Cadaveric models, although considered more realistic, may be difficult to obtain and costly. The advent of three-dimensional (3D) printing has offered a low-cost, reliable, and reproducible alternative. This study sought to compare the utility of 3D-printed to cadaveric models for training in transcutaneous injection laryngoplasty (TIL).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A simulation course with a cross-over design was employed. Video laryngoscopes were utilized for both the 3D and cadaveric models to assess the accuracy of injection into the vocal fold. Pre-procedure and post-procedure surveys were administered to evaluate understanding and comfort level on a Likert scale of 1–10. Each model was also rated on a 1–5 Likert scale for self-efficacy, fidelity, and educational value.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Pre- and post-survey data were completed by 15 otolaryngology residents and medical students. Mean pre-seminar understanding and comfort level were 3.7 and 2.2, respectively, compared to 6.9 and 5.9 (<i>p</i> < .05) following use of the 3D model and 6.4 and 4.7 (<i>p</i> < .05) following use of the cadaver model. When comparing 3D and cadaveric models, no significant differences were observed regarding self-efficacy, fidelity, and educational value.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>There was a similar mean increase in understanding and comfort following use of the 3D and cadaveric models. 3D-printing can provide an excellent adjunct to, and eventually a potential replacement for hands-on cadaveric training in medical education, particularly for TIL.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>Level III.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48529,"journal":{"name":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","volume":"9 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11301821/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lio2.1305","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
There is increasing focus on the development of high-quality simulation models for medical education. Cadaveric models, although considered more realistic, may be difficult to obtain and costly. The advent of three-dimensional (3D) printing has offered a low-cost, reliable, and reproducible alternative. This study sought to compare the utility of 3D-printed to cadaveric models for training in transcutaneous injection laryngoplasty (TIL).
Methods
A simulation course with a cross-over design was employed. Video laryngoscopes were utilized for both the 3D and cadaveric models to assess the accuracy of injection into the vocal fold. Pre-procedure and post-procedure surveys were administered to evaluate understanding and comfort level on a Likert scale of 1–10. Each model was also rated on a 1–5 Likert scale for self-efficacy, fidelity, and educational value.
Results
Pre- and post-survey data were completed by 15 otolaryngology residents and medical students. Mean pre-seminar understanding and comfort level were 3.7 and 2.2, respectively, compared to 6.9 and 5.9 (p < .05) following use of the 3D model and 6.4 and 4.7 (p < .05) following use of the cadaver model. When comparing 3D and cadaveric models, no significant differences were observed regarding self-efficacy, fidelity, and educational value.
Conclusion
There was a similar mean increase in understanding and comfort following use of the 3D and cadaveric models. 3D-printing can provide an excellent adjunct to, and eventually a potential replacement for hands-on cadaveric training in medical education, particularly for TIL.