Scholarlink

Background <p>Radiological training is often underrepresented in medical education, despite its essential role in clinical practice. Innovations like 3D printing offer detailed anatomical models that enhance understanding. In kidney cancer management, imaging and tumor complexity scores are crucial. This study evaluated whether three-dimensional (3D) kidney models could improve medical students’ anatomical and spatial understanding of renal tumors, as assessed through CT-based complexity scoring.</p> Methods <p>Three kidney tumor cases of varying complexity were selected. CT scans were segmented using Synapse 3D<sup>®</sup> to create models printed with high-resolution, multi-material technology (Stratasys J750<sup>®</sup>). Twenty-three fifth-year medical students were randomized into three groups: CT-only, CT + 3D virtual model (3DV), and CT + 3D-printed model (3DP). Each group interpreted the same anonymized CT scans and completed questionnaires assessing complexity scores and anatomical understanding. Accuracy and time efficiency were compared across groups.</p> Results <p>The 3DV and 3DP groups showed significantly greater accuracy in completing complexity scores (91% [IQR 82–91] and 91% [IQR 73–100]) than the CT-only group (73% [IQR 64–82], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), reflecting improved spatial understanding of renal anatomy. Total scores and satisfaction were higher in 3D groups, with students endorsing the educational value of both model types. Time to completion was shorter in 3D groups (3DV: 9.4&#xa0;min ± 4.7; 3DP: 7.1&#xa0;min ± 3.5) versus CT-only (11&#xa0;min ± 5.3, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Total scores and satisfaction were higher in 3D groups, with students endorsing the educational value of both model types.</p> Conclusion <p>3D-printed and virtual kidney models improved students’ spatial understanding and task performance in renal tumor complexity assessment, reflecting enhanced anatomical comprehension rather than pure CT interpretation skills. Virtual models, offering similar educational benefits at lower cost, may be especially valuable for integration into medical curricula.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

3D printed and virtual kidney models as learning tools to improve anatomical and spatial understanding of renal tumors: a pilot educational study (Rein-3D print students – UroCCR 219)

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月15日

查看全文
  • Gaëlle Margue,
  • Clément Michiels,
  • Joffrey Sarrazin,
  • Matthieu Faessel,
  • Eva Jambon,
  • Solène Ricard,
  • Franck Bladou,
  • Grégoire Robert,
  • Jocelyn Sabatier,
  • Frédéric Bos,
  • Jean-Christophe Bernhard

摘要

Background

Radiological training is often underrepresented in medical education, despite its essential role in clinical practice. Innovations like 3D printing offer detailed anatomical models that enhance understanding. In kidney cancer management, imaging and tumor complexity scores are crucial. This study evaluated whether three-dimensional (3D) kidney models could improve medical students’ anatomical and spatial understanding of renal tumors, as assessed through CT-based complexity scoring.

Methods

Three kidney tumor cases of varying complexity were selected. CT scans were segmented using Synapse 3D® to create models printed with high-resolution, multi-material technology (Stratasys J750®). Twenty-three fifth-year medical students were randomized into three groups: CT-only, CT + 3D virtual model (3DV), and CT + 3D-printed model (3DP). Each group interpreted the same anonymized CT scans and completed questionnaires assessing complexity scores and anatomical understanding. Accuracy and time efficiency were compared across groups.

Results

The 3DV and 3DP groups showed significantly greater accuracy in completing complexity scores (91% [IQR 82–91] and 91% [IQR 73–100]) than the CT-only group (73% [IQR 64–82], p < 0.05), reflecting improved spatial understanding of renal anatomy. Total scores and satisfaction were higher in 3D groups, with students endorsing the educational value of both model types. Time to completion was shorter in 3D groups (3DV: 9.4 min ± 4.7; 3DP: 7.1 min ± 3.5) versus CT-only (11 min ± 5.3, p < 0.05). Total scores and satisfaction were higher in 3D groups, with students endorsing the educational value of both model types.

Conclusion

3D-printed and virtual kidney models improved students’ spatial understanding and task performance in renal tumor complexity assessment, reflecting enhanced anatomical comprehension rather than pure CT interpretation skills. Virtual models, offering similar educational benefits at lower cost, may be especially valuable for integration into medical curricula.