Three Dimensional Printed Models of Anatomic Variation: A Pilot Study

Abstract

IntroductionAs technology is integrated into the classroom, evaluating added benefits, or lack thereof, is necessary. Plastic models have long been used in anatomical education, but lack detail, are unrealistic, expensive, and are often too rigid to manipulate. Meanwhile, three‐dimensional (3D) printed anatomical models can replicate anatomic variation and pathology, are realistic, cost effective, and can be made from flexible plastics. Previous research has shown benefits of 3D printed anatomical models in medical education, however their efficacy for teaching anatomic variation or in other health professions remains unknown.AimTo implement 3D printed anatomical models in a lab setting to enhance graduate health professions student understanding of a complex, hard to visualize, anatomical structure. Furthermore, understanding the role of 3D printing in anatomy education will enable future research on the use of this technology.MethodsAfter IRB exemption, three standard tessellation language (STL) files representing the most common anatomic variants of the internal iliac artery (IIA) were created with a scanning software (NextEngine, Santa Monica, CA) and finalized in MeshMixer (Autodesk, San Rafael, CA). The files were then 3D printed using a flexible filament on a Stratasys Mojo printer (Eden Prarie, MN). Graduate health professions students (athletic training [AT], occupational therapy [OT], and physical therapy [PT]) in a human anatomy course were randomly assigned to a control or intervention lab group. Control group received traditional instruction from faculty using plastic anatomic models and cadavers. Intervention group received the same instruction with addition of 3D printed models. Following lab, all students completed a three question post‐lab quiz, assessing anatomic knowledge of the IIA. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 26.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). A comparison of scores were performed using a Mann‐Whitney U test.ResultsSubjects included 125 graduate health professions students (male=36, 28.8%; AT=8; PT=62; OT=55). There were no significant differences in quiz scores between control (n=57; mean=2.45±0.64) and experimental (mean=2.48±0.63) groups (p=0.84).Discussion and ConclusionUtilization of 3D printed anatomical models of IIA variations had no impact on knowledge assessments in a graduate health professions population. The results of this pilot study indicate there may be no added benefit or detriment to supplementing anatomic lab sessions with 3D printed models; however, cadavers in the lab had two variants of the IIA demonstrated by the 3D models. Therefore, it is difficult to extrapolate the outcomes of the current study. Future studies should directly compare plastic models and 3D printed models independent of cadaveric specimens. Such data could drive resource allocation and cost‐saving methods to produce affordable and flexible models that may better represent anatomic variation and pathology.Support or Funding InformationThis project was funded by an intramural grant from the Educational Scholarly Activity Research Fund at A.T. Still University.