Observational study shows enhanced anatomical understanding in orthopedic residents using 3D models, indicating a shift in training methods.
Traditional orthopedic teaching methods have inherent limitations in conveying complex three-dimensional anatomical relationships essential for surgical planning and execution. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offers a potential solution to these educational challenges, but systematic evaluation of its specific educational impact in orthopedic residency training remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the educational efficacy of in-house 3D-printed patient-specific anatomical models in orthopedic training through assessment of three core domains: anatomical comprehension, surgical planning proficiency, and clinical teaching utility. In this analytical observational study, paper-based questionnaires were distributed to 145 orthopedic residents at Hubei University of Medicine who participated in clinical teaching sessions using 3D-printed anatomical models between January 2025 and March 2025. Participants rated their experiences on a 10-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The response rate was 81.4% (n=118). A majority (85.6%) of residents reported enhanced understanding of complex anatomical structures. First-year residents demonstrated higher satisfaction (mean score 7.9) compared to more advanced trainees (mean scores 7.3 and 6.9). Small group settings (4-6 participants) were preferred by 76.3% of respondents. Physical manipulation of models received the highest educational value rating (mean score 8.1). Primary limitations included production time (45.8%), material durability (38.6%), and limited model varieties (35.6%). Nearly half (43.2%) of residents requested more frequent practice sessions. 3D-printed anatomical models significantly enhance orthopedic resident education, particularly for complex structures and junior trainees. Small-group, instructor-guided implementation maximizes educational benefits. When strategically integrated into existing curricula, in-house production enables widespread access across training levels with minimal resource constraints.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: