## 3 Results  
A total of 21 participants were recruited in this study, comprising 6 radiologists and 15 surgeons. Figure 5 shows the demographics of the study participants with regard to their working experience. The mean ranks of the 3 DPPVMs for each question are detailed in Table 1. The highest overall scores were found in accurately displaying anatomical structures (mean rank > 4.2 for all four models), clarifying pathology to patients (mean rank > 4.1 for all four models), and clarifying pathology to health professionals (mean rank of 4.0 for aorta, carotid, and coronary artery models and 3.83 for renal artery model). The lowest mean ranks were noted in reducing the procedure time and developing haptic skills, with values less than 3.5 and 3.5, respectively, when compared to the others. No significant difference was found with regard to the values of the 3 DPPVMs in these areas, except for the demonstration of realism and enhancement of the planning of interventions, where the aorta model was ranked the highest. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Questions** & **Artery Models** & **Mean** & **SD** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Do the 3 DPPVMs...} \\ \hline Demonstrate realism & Coronary & 3.85 & 0.93 & 0.23 \\  & Carotid & 3.90 & 0.97 & 0.23 \\  & Aorta & 4.10 & 0.89 & 0.002 \\  & Renal & 3.85 & 0.93 & 0.001 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Accurately display anatomical structures} & Coronary & 4.25 & 0.72 & 0.59 \\  & Carotid & 4.30 & 0.73 & 0.54 \\  & Aorta & 4.29 & 0.85 & 0.53 \\  & Renal & 4.20 & 0.77 & 0.15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The mean ranks of the 3 DPPVMs in clinical applications based on the participants’ responses. Further questions were asked regarding whether the use of 3 DPPVMs enhances communication with interventional clinicians, whether the use of 3 DPPVMs is feasible in a surgical setting, and whether the clinician would recommend the use of 3 DPPVMs to their colleagues. Those that received Yes responses from the participants who completed the questionnaire are shown in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Questions** & **Artery Models** & **Mean** & **SD** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Enhance understanding of the disease shown & Coronary & 3.95 & 1.23 & 0.19 \\  & Carotid & 3.89 & 1.24 & 0.36 \\  & Aorta & 3.86 & 1.20 & 0.11 \\  & Renal & 3.80 & 1.28 & 0.21 \\ \hline Enhance interventional radiology procedure required & Coronary & 3.65 & 0.88 & 0.46 \\  & Carotid & 3.70 & 0.80 & 0.60 \\  & Aorta & 3.57 & 1.08 & 0.29 \\  & Renal & 3.50 & 1.00 & 0.29 \\ \hline Enhance planning of interventions & Coronary & 3.80 & 0.95 & 0.04 \\  & Carotid & 3.85 & 0.99 & 0.14 \\  & Aorta & 3.90 & 1.12 & 0.09 \\  & Renal & 3.75 & 1.07 & 0.04 \\ \hline Enhance pre-intervention simulation & Coronary & 3.80 & 1.06 & 0.68 \\ and selection of interventional radiology devices & Carotid & 3.95 & 0.95 & 0.31 \\  & Aorta & 4.05 & 0.95 & 0.24 \\  & Renal & 3.80 & 1.01 & 0.28 \\ \hline Develop haptic skills & Coronary & 3.50 & 0.99 & 0.61 \\  & Carotid & 3.50 & 0.99 & 0.61 \\  & Aorta & 3.56 & 0.98 & 0.61 \\  & Renal & 3.50 & 0.99 & 0.61 \\ \hline Reduce procedure time & Coronary & 3.26 & 1.05 & 0.80 \\  & Carotid & 3.32 & 1.06 & 0.65 \\  & Aorta & 3.47 & 1.12 & 0.59 \\  & Renal & 3.22 & 1.00 & 0.65 \\ \hline Clarify pathology to patients & Coronary & 4.21 & 0.92 & 0.49 \\  & Carotid & 4.26 & 0.87 & 0.68 \\  & Aorta & 4.33 & 0.69 & 0.70 \\  & Renal & 4.17 & 0.92 & 0.49 \\ \hline Clarify pathology to health professionals & Coronary & 4.00 & 1.20 & 0.54 \\  & Carotid & 4.00 & 1.11 & 0.66 \\  & Aorta & 4.00 & 1.05 & 0.61 \\  & Renal & 3.83 & 1.20 & 0.54 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Thematic analysis of clinicians’ qualitative data.