Matthias Kiesel, Inga Beyers, Adam Kalisz, Achim Wöckel, Anne Quenzer, Tanja Schlaiß, Christine Wulff, Joachim Diessner
{"title":"Evaluating the value of a 3D printed model for hands-on training of gynecological pelvic examination.","authors":"Matthias Kiesel, Inga Beyers, Adam Kalisz, Achim Wöckel, Anne Quenzer, Tanja Schlaiß, Christine Wulff, Joachim Diessner","doi":"10.1186/s41205-022-00149-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Simulation in the field of gynecological pelvic examination with educational purposes holds great potential. In the current manuscript we evaluate a 3D printed model of the female pelvis, which improves practical teaching of the gynecological pelvic examination for medical staff.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the benefit of a 3D printed model of the female pelvis (Pelvisio®) as part of a seminar (\"skills training\") for teaching gynecological examination to medical students. Each student was randomly assigned to Group A or B by picking a ticket from a box. Group A underwent the skills training without the 3D printed model. Group B experienced the same seminar with integration of the model. Both groups evaluated the seminar by answering five questions on Likert scales (1-10, 1 = \"very little\" or \"very poor\", 10 equals \"very much\" or \"very good\"). Additionally, both groups answered three multiple-choice questions concerning pelvic anatomy (Question 6 to 8). Finally, Group B evaluated the 3D printed model with ten questions (Question 9 to 18, Likert scales, 1-10).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two of five questions concerning the students' satisfaction with the seminar and their gained knowledge showed statistically significant better ratings in Group B (6.7 vs. 8.2 points and 8.1 vs. 8.9 points (p < 0.001 and p < 0.009). The other three questions showed no statistically significant differences between the traditional teaching setting vs. the 3D printed model (p < 0.411, p < 0.344 and p < 0.215, respectively). The overall mean score of Question 1 to 5 showed 8.4 points for Group B and 7.8 points for Group A (p < 0.001). All three multiple-choice questions, asking about female pelvic anatomy, were answered more often correctly by Group B (p < 0.001, p < 0.008 and p < 0.001, respectively). The mean score from the answers to Questions 9 to 18, only answered by Group B, showed a mean of 8.6 points, indicating, that the students approved of the model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The presented 3D printed model Pelvisio® improves the education of female pelvic anatomy and examination for medical students. Hence, training this pivotal examination can be supported by a custom designed anatomical model tailored for interactive and explorative learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":72036,"journal":{"name":"3D printing in medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9261074/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"3D printing in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-022-00149-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background: Simulation in the field of gynecological pelvic examination with educational purposes holds great potential. In the current manuscript we evaluate a 3D printed model of the female pelvis, which improves practical teaching of the gynecological pelvic examination for medical staff.
Methods: We evaluated the benefit of a 3D printed model of the female pelvis (Pelvisio®) as part of a seminar ("skills training") for teaching gynecological examination to medical students. Each student was randomly assigned to Group A or B by picking a ticket from a box. Group A underwent the skills training without the 3D printed model. Group B experienced the same seminar with integration of the model. Both groups evaluated the seminar by answering five questions on Likert scales (1-10, 1 = "very little" or "very poor", 10 equals "very much" or "very good"). Additionally, both groups answered three multiple-choice questions concerning pelvic anatomy (Question 6 to 8). Finally, Group B evaluated the 3D printed model with ten questions (Question 9 to 18, Likert scales, 1-10).
Results: Two of five questions concerning the students' satisfaction with the seminar and their gained knowledge showed statistically significant better ratings in Group B (6.7 vs. 8.2 points and 8.1 vs. 8.9 points (p < 0.001 and p < 0.009). The other three questions showed no statistically significant differences between the traditional teaching setting vs. the 3D printed model (p < 0.411, p < 0.344 and p < 0.215, respectively). The overall mean score of Question 1 to 5 showed 8.4 points for Group B and 7.8 points for Group A (p < 0.001). All three multiple-choice questions, asking about female pelvic anatomy, were answered more often correctly by Group B (p < 0.001, p < 0.008 and p < 0.001, respectively). The mean score from the answers to Questions 9 to 18, only answered by Group B, showed a mean of 8.6 points, indicating, that the students approved of the model.
Conclusion: The presented 3D printed model Pelvisio® improves the education of female pelvic anatomy and examination for medical students. Hence, training this pivotal examination can be supported by a custom designed anatomical model tailored for interactive and explorative learning.