Abstract

BackgroundTo 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.MethodsInterviews 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.ResultsConcerning 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.Conclusions3D-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.

Highlights

  • 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

  • Medical imaging plays a paramount role in diagnosis, volumetric computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with isotropic voxels [1, 2]

  • Averages The averages including the radiologists’ feedback showed only marginal differences compared to the averages excluding the radiologists

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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. Many diagnoses are made with interpretation of axial slices, but include medical intuition gained from 2D-Displays of volumetric data sets such as multiplanar reformatted images, maximum intensity projections, and 3D volume rendering. These are collectively defined as 3D visualizations [3]. Often used methods for printing are material extrusion (MEX) and vat photopolymerization (VP) [19, 20]. VR is a computergenerated simulation of a three-dimensional environment with which a person can interact using special electronic equipment This can be combined with a wearable headset called VR-Glasses. VR-Glasses have become more employed in diagnostics [33, 34]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call