Application of 3D Printing and Ultrasound in Anatomical Education
Authors: Butaric Lauren Nicole , Ruettinger Christopher John 
Published: June 2021

The incorporation of ultrasound in medical education is expanding, as it allows students to appreciate anatomy through an imaging modality while also becoming proficient in a technique utilized in many fields. However, students often express difficulty in applying 3D spatial comprehension from cadaveric dissections to 2D ultrasound images. 3D printing alongside ultrasound offers an innovative way to allow students to better process complex anatomical relationships. However, while studies show 3D models and ultrasound enhance anatomical education, the use of 3D printed models customized to specific ultrasound images, and their effect on anatomical understanding, has yet to be fully investigated. Here, we present preliminary results of ongoing research (IRB exempt) assessing the use of 3D printing for enhanced cardiac ultrasound and anatomical education in a Physician Assistant's (PA) Gross Anatomy Course.

First, a digital heart model was downloaded from www.Thingiverse.com, imported into Geomagic Studio (v2014.2) and edited for anatomical accuracy and printing durability. The model was then digitally cut into a plane replicating parasternal long axis in ultrasound. Models were 3D printed on a Formlabs Form2 printer, using 0.1mm resolution and Grey V3 resin. The heart models were incorporated alongside ultrasound in the 2018 Summer PA Gross Anatomy Course.

To determine whether the incorporation of ultrasound and 3D heart models enhanced students' understanding of the cardiac system, statistics for cardiac questions were pulled from previous exams and organized into three cohorts: No Ultrasound (Summer 2015); Ultrasound Only (Summers 2016 2017); Ultrasound + 3DModel (Summer 2018). Each course ranged from 49–52 students with 20–24 cardiac questions available for analysis. For each question the primary variable of interest was “percentage answered correctly”, but additional variables were obtained: question type (anatomical, embryological, imaging), exam type (practical, written), question difficulty (Blooming Anatomy Tool Level)., Non‐parametric statistics were used due to non‐normality of the data.

Overall mean scores for cardiac questions increased with each cohort: No Ultrasound (83%), Ultrasound Only (87%), Ultrasound + 3Dmodel (88%). However, independent Kruskal‐Wallis tests indicate the distribution of scores is not significantly different among cohorts (test statistic=2.016; P=0.365). Additional analyses failed to find significant differences among cohorts, even when focusing on specific question type, exam type, or question difficulty (all P‐values > 0.10).

Although significant differences were not established, uprising trends in mean scores and anecdotal evidence of student excitement are encouraging. This preliminary study was limited in that additional factors (previous anatomy or ultrasound experience, student attitudes, demographics) were not analyzed. Additional studies with larger courses, other programs (osteopathic or allopathic medical students), and pre/post tests would provide more insight into how implementing 3D modeling may enhance student learning environments in a combined ultrasound‐anatomy curriculum.

Support or Funding Information

none

This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.