Methods: This was a prospective educational study with comparison with historical controls (reference cohort). At a temporal bone dissection course, eighteen participants performed structured self-assessment during three hours of VR simulation training of mastoidectomy before proceeding to cadaver dissection/surgery (intervention cohort). At a previous course, eighteen participants received similar VR simulation training but without the structured self-assessment (reference cohort). Final products from VR simulation and cadaveric dissection were video-recorded and assessed by two blinded raters using a 19-point modified Welling Scale.
Results: The intervention cohort completed fewer procedures (average 4.2) during VR simulation training than the reference cohort (average 5.7). Nevertheless, the intervention cohort achieved a significantly higher average dissection score both in VR simulation (11.1 points, 95% CI [10.6–11.5]) and subsequent cadaveric dissection (11.8 points, 95% CI [10.7–12.8]) compared with the reference cohort who scored 9.1 points (95% CI [8.7–9.5]) during VR simulation and 5.8 points (95% CI [4.8–6.8]) during cadaveric dissection.
Conclusion: Structured self-assessment is a valuable learning support during self-directed VR simulation training of mastoidectomy and the positive effect on performance transfers to subsequent cadaveric dissection performance.
]]>Data sources: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science.
Review methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, relevant studies were identified and data on manufacturing and validation and/or training extracted by 2 reviewers. Quality assessment was performed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument tool; educational outcomes were determined according to Kirkpatrick’s model.
Results: The search yielded 595 studies; 36 studies were found eligible and included for analysis. The described 3D-printed models were based on computed tomography scans from patients or cadavers. Processing included manual segmentation of key structures such as the facial nerve; postprocessing, for example, consisted of removal of print material inside the model. Overall, educational quality was low, and most studies evaluated their models using only expert and/or trainee opinion (ie, Kirkpatrick level 1). Most studies reported positive attitudes toward the models and their potential for training.
Conclusion: Manufacturing and use of 3D-printed temporal bones for surgical training are widely reported in the literature. However, evidence to support their use and knowledge about both manufacturing and the effects on subsequent surgical performance are currently lacking. Therefore, stronger educational evidence and manufacturing knowhow are needed for widespread implementation of 3D-printed temporal bones in surgical curricula.
]]>