Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

3D printing exposure and perception in radiology residency: survey results of radiology chief residents

3D printing exposure and perception in radiology residency: survey results of radiology chief... Rationale and objectives The purpose of this study is to summarize a survey of radiology chief residents focused on 3D printing in radiology. Materials and methods An online survey was distributed to chief residents in North American radiology residencies by subgroups of the Association of University Radiologists. The survey included a subset of questions focused on the clinical use of 3D printing and perceptions of the role of 3D printing and radiology. Respondents were asked to define the role of 3D printing at their institution and asked about the potential role of clinical 3D printing in radiology and radiology residencies. Results 152 individual responses from 90 programs were provided, with a 46% overall program response rate (n = 90/194 radiology residencies). Most programs had 3D printing at their institution (60%; n = 54/90 programs). Among the institutions that perform 3D printing, 33% (n = 18/54) have structured opportunities for resident contribution. Most residents (60%; n = 91/152 respondents) feel they would benefit from 3D printing exposure or educational material. 56% of residents (n = 84/151) believed clinical 3D printing should be centered in radiology departments. 22% of residents (n = 34/151) believed it would increase communication and improve relationships between radiology and surgery colleagues. A minority (5%; 7/151) believe 3D printing is too costly, time-consuming, or outside a radiologist’s scope of practice. Conclusions A majority of surveyed chief residents in accredited radiology residencies believe they would benefit from exposure to 3D printing in residency. 3D printing education and integration would be a valuable addition to current radiology residency program curricula. Keywords 3D printing, Radiology, Residency *Correspondence: Department of Internal Medicine, University of California-Riverside Grace L. Bishop School of Medicine, Riverside, CA, USA bishop.g@wustl.edu Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of School of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA MO, USA Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Chen et al. 3D Printing in Medicine (2023) 9:13 Page 2 of 4 Introduction training programs and radiology education nationwide as Clinical use of 3D printing anatomic models and guides reported by radiology chief residents. from medical imaging has been supported by organized radiological societies with educational efforts by the AUR Materials and methods Radiology Research Alliance [1, 2] and Radiological Soci- This was an analysis of an electronic survey distributed ety of North America 3D Printing Special Interest Group to radiology chief residents of ACGME-accredited radi- [3], and successful application and integration of category ology residency programs. This survey was designated as III Current Procedural Codes by the American College nonhuman research by our Institutional Review Board. of Radiology [4]. One such evolving area is 3D printing, SurveyMonkey (Palo Alto, CA), an online survey plat- which has recently been gaining significant traction in form, was used to generate an anonymous electronic its clinical applications. Within just the last decade, an survey with multiple choice questions to collect infor- increasing number of 3D printing labs have been estab- mation about radiology residency programs and topics lished, typically within large, university-affiliated teach - relevant to radiology training. A subset of these ques- ing hospitals [5]. Clinical applications for 3D printing are tions included questions aimed at assessing the use of broad and range from perioperative planning via proce- 3D printing at various radiology residents’ institutions dural stimulation to medical student anatomy education, and respondents’ opinions of 3D printing’s relationship and the use of 3D printing has led to improvements in to radiology. The survey was distributed via email using quality of trainee comprehension and patient outcomes a member distribution list of the Association of Univer- [6]. sity Radiologist’s affiliate subgroups of chief residents, Many of the most salient applications of 3D printing program coordinators, and program directors. Respon- come in the perioperative setting, and as a result, select dents were asked to identify as a chief resident of a diag- surgery programs have begun integrating 3D printing nostic or interventional radiology residency program. into their own medical training curricula. 3D printed Responses were gathered over a two-month period from organ models have been demonstrated to substantially March 20, 2020, through May 15, 2020, and prospec- benefit surgical skills for learners, including medical stu - tive respondents were sent email reminders at 2-week dents, general surgery residents, and attending physicians intervals. As the survey was conducted during the early [7, 8]. There is a growing body of literature document - stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a separate survey ing the effectiveness of 3D printing in residency educa - covering topics relating to COVID specifically was sent tion and training using both subjective and objective to the same group of chief residents and published sepa- measurements [9–11]. Within the 3D printing workflow, rately [12]. There was no overlapping data between the while surgeons serve as the primary end-users, radiolo- two surveys outside of data summarizing the number of gists are integral to generating 3D models from medical responding individuals and programs. imaging (e.g., X-ray, CT, MRI). In addition, administra- To differentiate responses from residency programs tion for a majority of university-based 3D printing labs with multiple chief residents, survey respondents were stems from radiology departments [1]. As such, radiology asked to identify their residency training program. residency programs stand to benefit from introducing Besides this information, no additional personal details their trainees to 3D printing. The establishment of cate - were collected to maintain anonymity and subjectivity. gory III Current Procedural Terminology codes from the Respondents had the option to skip questions, which Centers for Medicare and Medicaid indicates a growing accounts for variability in the total number of respon- trend in utilization of 3D printing and has positive impli- dents for each question. Survey responses were compiled, cations for future reimbursement [2]. As 3D printing and data were summarized and analyzed at individual becomes further integrated into the radiologist’s clinical and program levels. duties, future residents should understand the technol- ogy behind these applications and how best to leverage Results them. 152 radiology chief residents responded to the survey Each year, the American Alliance of Academic Chief representing 90 out of 194 (46%) eligible radiology resi- Residents in Radiology, an affiliate of the Association of dency programs throughout North America (85 pro- University Radiologists, distributes an annual survey grams from the United States, 3 programs from Canada, to radiology chief residents in Accreditation Council and 2 programs from Mexico). One respondent did not for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited answer all 3D printing questions, accounting for variabil- radiology residency programs. In this, a focused subset ity in 152 and 151 as the respondent denominator. Most of 3D printing related questions was included. The pur - respondents reported that their institutions had 3D print- pose of this study is to summarize the results of that sur- ing (n = 54/90, 60%), with 27% (n = 24/90) indicating it is vey and identify areas of unmet need within residency used only for research and 28% (n = 25/90) responding Chen et al. 3D Printing in Medicine (2023) 9:13 Page 3 of 4 that it is used in clinical practice (Fig.  1). Of programs radiology chief residents believed that residents would that had 3D printing, 33% (n = 18/54) allow residents to benefit from instruction and teaching on the topic. 3D assist in the process, 13% (n = 7/54) do not involve resi- printing extends to various fields, including cardiology, dents, and 24% (n = 13/54) indicated that while it is avail- neurosurgery, and obstetrics-gynecology [13–15]; edu- able at their institution, radiology is not directly involved. cation could prove beneficial to procedurally oriented Most residents (n = 91/152, 60%) feel they would benefit residencies. Though most respondents indicated that 3D from some exposure to 3D printing and 6% indicated it printing should be centered in radiology departments, is unlikely to be important in a radiologist’s career. this likely includes a bias due to sampling of only radi- When asked if 3D printing should be housed in radiol- ology residents. 3D printing will be institution-specific ogy departments, 56% (n = 84/151) indicated yes, 34% and ultimately determined by funding availability and (n = 52/151) were unsure, and 10% (n = 15/151) indicated financial commitment from hospital and university no. Of the total, 33% (n = 50/151) believe it should be administrations. housed within radiology departments because of radiolo- Despite the exciting developments in the field of 3D gists’ knowledge of imaging and segmentation, and 22% printing, several factors serve to limit its overall scope (n = 34/151) believe it would increase communication and adoption in clinical settings, including significant and promote a collegial relationship between radiolo- startup costs [4] and non-uniform reimbursement [16] gists and surgeons. A minority believe 3D printing is too via category III CPT codes, which are primarily used for costly, time-consuming, or outside the scope of practice tracking than for robust reimbursement purposes [4]. for radiologists (n = 7/151, 5%), and 5% (n = 8/151) believe These challenges may, in turn, temper the enthusiasm surgeons should have control over it. for resident participation. Specifically, since 3D print - ing is not yet cost–neutral from the perspective of radi- Discussion ology administration, there are limited situations where This survey summarizes the role of 3D printing at insti - it will generate job vacancies in its current state. Further tutions associated with radiology residency and radiology research in the form of formal cost analysis is required chief resident opinions on 3D printing’s role in radiology to determine whether the clinical benefits of 3D print - and if 3D printing exposure would be beneficial to radiol - ing in the perioperative and educational settings can ogy residency education. Although 3D printing was avail- offset its associated benefits [ 17]. Despite this, 3D print- able at 60% of the respondents’ institutions, the degree ing remains an exciting and potentially practice-altering of participation among radiologists and radiology train- technology for radiologists, and by the time reimburse- ees varied by institution. While most programs either do ment is more feasible, and funding is well established, not utilize 3D printing or limit its use to research, about many newly graduated radiologists will not have had suf- one-third of programs use 3D printing in clinical prac- ficient training or understanding in 3D printing to take tice. The educational value of 3D printing in residency advantage of its many uses. The findings in this survey curricula should be considered and expanded, as most demonstrate that there is significant resident interest and Fig. 1 3D printing in medical practice by radiology training program. The clinical use of 3D printing by institution is indicated as a percentage of surveyed residency programs Chen et al. 3D Printing in Medicine (2023) 9:13 Page 4 of 4 Data availability enthusiasm in the integration of 3D printing training into Data is available by reasonable request to the corresponding author. residency curricula even in spite of reimbursement chal- lenges and clinical adoption at a minority of hospitals. Declarations Residency programs and program directors may do well Ethical approval to consider integration of 3D printing training to better Our Institutional Review Board designated this survey as nonhuman research. prepare trainees to take advantage of the clinical applica- Competing interests tions of 3D printing in their future practices. The authors have no competing interests. Limitations Received: 23 February 2023 / Accepted: 24 March 2023 This survey has limitations. This targeted radiology chief resident survey relies on respondents to identify the role of 3D printing at their institution, regardless of their knowledge or experience with 3D printing. It is possible some respondents that indicated that there was no 3D References printing at their institution have 3D printing users that 1. Hodgdon T, Danrad R, Patel MJ, et al. Logistics of three-dimensional printing: primer for radiologists. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(1):40–51. they were not aware of. Questions presented here asking 2. Ballard DH, Trace AP, Ali S, et al. Clinical applications of 3D printing: primer for respondents’ opinions on 3D printing and radiology are radiologists. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(1):52–65. likely biased towards a response more favorable to radiol- 3. Wake N, Alexander AE, Christensen AM, et al. Creating patient-specific anatomical models for 3D printing and AR/VR: a supplement for the 2018 ogy than if non-radiology trainees or attendings were also Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) hands-on course. 3D Print Med. surveyed. Responses on integrating 3D printing exposure 2019;5(1):17. to radiology residents are influenced by individual expo - 4. Ballard DH, Mills P, Duszak R Jr, et al. Medical 3D printing cost-savings in orthopedic and maxillofacial surgery: cost analysis of operating room time sure and experiences with 3D printing. As 3D printing saved with 3D printed anatomic models and surgical guides. Acad Radiol. was a subset of a more extensive survey aimed at col- 2020;27(8):1103–13. lecting comprehensive radiology residency data, we were 5. Shine KM, Schlegel L, Ho M, et al. From the ground up: understanding the developing infrastructure and resources of 3D printing facilities in hospital- limited in the number of 3D printing questions we could based settings. 3D Print Med. 2022;8(1):21. include. 6. Ganapathy A, Chen D, Elumalai A, et al. Guide for starting or optimizing a 3D printing clinical service. Methods. 2022;206:41–52. 7. Williams A, McWilliam M, Ahlin J, et al. A simulated training model for laparo- Conclusion scopic pyloromyotomy: is 3D printing the way of the future? J Pediatr Surg. The residency training period is a formative stage that 2018;53(5):937–41. allows physicians to develop competency in their clini- 8. Jones TW, Seckeler MD. Use of 3D models of vascular rings and slings to improve resident education. Congenit Heart Dis. 2017;12(5):578–82. cal practice and gain exposure to their field. Radiology 9. Blohm JE, Salinas PA, Avila MJ, et al. Three-Dimensional Printing in Neu- is a specialty defined by the intersection of technology rosurgery Residency Training: a systematic review of the literature. World and medicine, and radiology residency programs may Neurosurg. 2022;161:111–22. 10. Langridge B, Momin S, Coumbe B, et al. Systematic review of the Use of consider integrating 3D printing educational material 3-Dimensional Printing in Surgical Teaching and Assessment. J Surg Educ. as a developing technology. A survey of radiology chief 2018;75(1):209–21. residents from accredited North American radiology 11. Boshra M, Godbout J, Perry JJ, et al. 3D printing in critical care: a narrative review. 3D Print Med. 2020;6(1):28. programs demonstrated that a minority of radiology resi- 12. Shetty A, Hammer M, Gould J, et al. Results of the 2014 survey of the dencies involve 3D printing in their current curricula and American Alliance of Academic Chief residents in Radiology. Acad Radiol. clinical practices. However, most respondents are inter- 2014;21(10):1331–47. 13. Yoo SJ, Thabit O, Kim EK, et al. 3D printing in medicine of congenital heart ested in learning 3D printing and incorporating it into diseases. 3D Print Med. 2015;2(1):3. their residency experience. Therefore, these data may be 14. Thiong’o GM, Bernstein M, Drake JM. 3D printing in neurosurgery education: used to inform radiology educators of potential benefits a review. 3D Print Med. 2021;7(1):9. 15. Galstyan A, Bunker MJ, Lobo F, et al. Applications of 3D printing in breast and resident-level interest in integrating 3D printing edu- cancer management. 3D Print Med. 2021;7(1):6. cation into radiology residency. 16. Mitsouras D, Liacouras PC, Wake N, et al. RadioGraphics update: medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics. 2020;40(4):E21–E3. Authors’ contributions 17. Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, et al. 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a KMM, GB, DB, and MJH were involved in conceptualization and project systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online. 2016;15(1):1–21. administration. DC, AG, and NA conducted formal analysis and writing of the original as well as the final draft. DHB, MJH, and FR reviewed and edited the primary draft. All authors reviewed the final manuscript. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in Funding published maps and institutional affiliations. The authors received no funding for this manuscript. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png 3D Printing in Medicine Springer Journals

3D printing exposure and perception in radiology residency: survey results of radiology chief residents

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/3d-printing-exposure-and-perception-in-radiology-residency-survey-qer8pea3Bj

References (19)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
eISSN
2365-6271
DOI
10.1186/s41205-023-00173-z
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Rationale and objectives The purpose of this study is to summarize a survey of radiology chief residents focused on 3D printing in radiology. Materials and methods An online survey was distributed to chief residents in North American radiology residencies by subgroups of the Association of University Radiologists. The survey included a subset of questions focused on the clinical use of 3D printing and perceptions of the role of 3D printing and radiology. Respondents were asked to define the role of 3D printing at their institution and asked about the potential role of clinical 3D printing in radiology and radiology residencies. Results 152 individual responses from 90 programs were provided, with a 46% overall program response rate (n = 90/194 radiology residencies). Most programs had 3D printing at their institution (60%; n = 54/90 programs). Among the institutions that perform 3D printing, 33% (n = 18/54) have structured opportunities for resident contribution. Most residents (60%; n = 91/152 respondents) feel they would benefit from 3D printing exposure or educational material. 56% of residents (n = 84/151) believed clinical 3D printing should be centered in radiology departments. 22% of residents (n = 34/151) believed it would increase communication and improve relationships between radiology and surgery colleagues. A minority (5%; 7/151) believe 3D printing is too costly, time-consuming, or outside a radiologist’s scope of practice. Conclusions A majority of surveyed chief residents in accredited radiology residencies believe they would benefit from exposure to 3D printing in residency. 3D printing education and integration would be a valuable addition to current radiology residency program curricula. Keywords 3D printing, Radiology, Residency *Correspondence: Department of Internal Medicine, University of California-Riverside Grace L. Bishop School of Medicine, Riverside, CA, USA bishop.g@wustl.edu Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of School of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA MO, USA Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Chen et al. 3D Printing in Medicine (2023) 9:13 Page 2 of 4 Introduction training programs and radiology education nationwide as Clinical use of 3D printing anatomic models and guides reported by radiology chief residents. from medical imaging has been supported by organized radiological societies with educational efforts by the AUR Materials and methods Radiology Research Alliance [1, 2] and Radiological Soci- This was an analysis of an electronic survey distributed ety of North America 3D Printing Special Interest Group to radiology chief residents of ACGME-accredited radi- [3], and successful application and integration of category ology residency programs. This survey was designated as III Current Procedural Codes by the American College nonhuman research by our Institutional Review Board. of Radiology [4]. One such evolving area is 3D printing, SurveyMonkey (Palo Alto, CA), an online survey plat- which has recently been gaining significant traction in form, was used to generate an anonymous electronic its clinical applications. Within just the last decade, an survey with multiple choice questions to collect infor- increasing number of 3D printing labs have been estab- mation about radiology residency programs and topics lished, typically within large, university-affiliated teach - relevant to radiology training. A subset of these ques- ing hospitals [5]. Clinical applications for 3D printing are tions included questions aimed at assessing the use of broad and range from perioperative planning via proce- 3D printing at various radiology residents’ institutions dural stimulation to medical student anatomy education, and respondents’ opinions of 3D printing’s relationship and the use of 3D printing has led to improvements in to radiology. The survey was distributed via email using quality of trainee comprehension and patient outcomes a member distribution list of the Association of Univer- [6]. sity Radiologist’s affiliate subgroups of chief residents, Many of the most salient applications of 3D printing program coordinators, and program directors. Respon- come in the perioperative setting, and as a result, select dents were asked to identify as a chief resident of a diag- surgery programs have begun integrating 3D printing nostic or interventional radiology residency program. into their own medical training curricula. 3D printed Responses were gathered over a two-month period from organ models have been demonstrated to substantially March 20, 2020, through May 15, 2020, and prospec- benefit surgical skills for learners, including medical stu - tive respondents were sent email reminders at 2-week dents, general surgery residents, and attending physicians intervals. As the survey was conducted during the early [7, 8]. There is a growing body of literature document - stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a separate survey ing the effectiveness of 3D printing in residency educa - covering topics relating to COVID specifically was sent tion and training using both subjective and objective to the same group of chief residents and published sepa- measurements [9–11]. Within the 3D printing workflow, rately [12]. There was no overlapping data between the while surgeons serve as the primary end-users, radiolo- two surveys outside of data summarizing the number of gists are integral to generating 3D models from medical responding individuals and programs. imaging (e.g., X-ray, CT, MRI). In addition, administra- To differentiate responses from residency programs tion for a majority of university-based 3D printing labs with multiple chief residents, survey respondents were stems from radiology departments [1]. As such, radiology asked to identify their residency training program. residency programs stand to benefit from introducing Besides this information, no additional personal details their trainees to 3D printing. The establishment of cate - were collected to maintain anonymity and subjectivity. gory III Current Procedural Terminology codes from the Respondents had the option to skip questions, which Centers for Medicare and Medicaid indicates a growing accounts for variability in the total number of respon- trend in utilization of 3D printing and has positive impli- dents for each question. Survey responses were compiled, cations for future reimbursement [2]. As 3D printing and data were summarized and analyzed at individual becomes further integrated into the radiologist’s clinical and program levels. duties, future residents should understand the technol- ogy behind these applications and how best to leverage Results them. 152 radiology chief residents responded to the survey Each year, the American Alliance of Academic Chief representing 90 out of 194 (46%) eligible radiology resi- Residents in Radiology, an affiliate of the Association of dency programs throughout North America (85 pro- University Radiologists, distributes an annual survey grams from the United States, 3 programs from Canada, to radiology chief residents in Accreditation Council and 2 programs from Mexico). One respondent did not for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited answer all 3D printing questions, accounting for variabil- radiology residency programs. In this, a focused subset ity in 152 and 151 as the respondent denominator. Most of 3D printing related questions was included. The pur - respondents reported that their institutions had 3D print- pose of this study is to summarize the results of that sur- ing (n = 54/90, 60%), with 27% (n = 24/90) indicating it is vey and identify areas of unmet need within residency used only for research and 28% (n = 25/90) responding Chen et al. 3D Printing in Medicine (2023) 9:13 Page 3 of 4 that it is used in clinical practice (Fig.  1). Of programs radiology chief residents believed that residents would that had 3D printing, 33% (n = 18/54) allow residents to benefit from instruction and teaching on the topic. 3D assist in the process, 13% (n = 7/54) do not involve resi- printing extends to various fields, including cardiology, dents, and 24% (n = 13/54) indicated that while it is avail- neurosurgery, and obstetrics-gynecology [13–15]; edu- able at their institution, radiology is not directly involved. cation could prove beneficial to procedurally oriented Most residents (n = 91/152, 60%) feel they would benefit residencies. Though most respondents indicated that 3D from some exposure to 3D printing and 6% indicated it printing should be centered in radiology departments, is unlikely to be important in a radiologist’s career. this likely includes a bias due to sampling of only radi- When asked if 3D printing should be housed in radiol- ology residents. 3D printing will be institution-specific ogy departments, 56% (n = 84/151) indicated yes, 34% and ultimately determined by funding availability and (n = 52/151) were unsure, and 10% (n = 15/151) indicated financial commitment from hospital and university no. Of the total, 33% (n = 50/151) believe it should be administrations. housed within radiology departments because of radiolo- Despite the exciting developments in the field of 3D gists’ knowledge of imaging and segmentation, and 22% printing, several factors serve to limit its overall scope (n = 34/151) believe it would increase communication and adoption in clinical settings, including significant and promote a collegial relationship between radiolo- startup costs [4] and non-uniform reimbursement [16] gists and surgeons. A minority believe 3D printing is too via category III CPT codes, which are primarily used for costly, time-consuming, or outside the scope of practice tracking than for robust reimbursement purposes [4]. for radiologists (n = 7/151, 5%), and 5% (n = 8/151) believe These challenges may, in turn, temper the enthusiasm surgeons should have control over it. for resident participation. Specifically, since 3D print - ing is not yet cost–neutral from the perspective of radi- Discussion ology administration, there are limited situations where This survey summarizes the role of 3D printing at insti - it will generate job vacancies in its current state. Further tutions associated with radiology residency and radiology research in the form of formal cost analysis is required chief resident opinions on 3D printing’s role in radiology to determine whether the clinical benefits of 3D print - and if 3D printing exposure would be beneficial to radiol - ing in the perioperative and educational settings can ogy residency education. Although 3D printing was avail- offset its associated benefits [ 17]. Despite this, 3D print- able at 60% of the respondents’ institutions, the degree ing remains an exciting and potentially practice-altering of participation among radiologists and radiology train- technology for radiologists, and by the time reimburse- ees varied by institution. While most programs either do ment is more feasible, and funding is well established, not utilize 3D printing or limit its use to research, about many newly graduated radiologists will not have had suf- one-third of programs use 3D printing in clinical prac- ficient training or understanding in 3D printing to take tice. The educational value of 3D printing in residency advantage of its many uses. The findings in this survey curricula should be considered and expanded, as most demonstrate that there is significant resident interest and Fig. 1 3D printing in medical practice by radiology training program. The clinical use of 3D printing by institution is indicated as a percentage of surveyed residency programs Chen et al. 3D Printing in Medicine (2023) 9:13 Page 4 of 4 Data availability enthusiasm in the integration of 3D printing training into Data is available by reasonable request to the corresponding author. residency curricula even in spite of reimbursement chal- lenges and clinical adoption at a minority of hospitals. Declarations Residency programs and program directors may do well Ethical approval to consider integration of 3D printing training to better Our Institutional Review Board designated this survey as nonhuman research. prepare trainees to take advantage of the clinical applica- Competing interests tions of 3D printing in their future practices. The authors have no competing interests. Limitations Received: 23 February 2023 / Accepted: 24 March 2023 This survey has limitations. This targeted radiology chief resident survey relies on respondents to identify the role of 3D printing at their institution, regardless of their knowledge or experience with 3D printing. It is possible some respondents that indicated that there was no 3D References printing at their institution have 3D printing users that 1. Hodgdon T, Danrad R, Patel MJ, et al. Logistics of three-dimensional printing: primer for radiologists. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(1):40–51. they were not aware of. Questions presented here asking 2. Ballard DH, Trace AP, Ali S, et al. Clinical applications of 3D printing: primer for respondents’ opinions on 3D printing and radiology are radiologists. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(1):52–65. likely biased towards a response more favorable to radiol- 3. Wake N, Alexander AE, Christensen AM, et al. Creating patient-specific anatomical models for 3D printing and AR/VR: a supplement for the 2018 ogy than if non-radiology trainees or attendings were also Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) hands-on course. 3D Print Med. surveyed. Responses on integrating 3D printing exposure 2019;5(1):17. to radiology residents are influenced by individual expo - 4. Ballard DH, Mills P, Duszak R Jr, et al. Medical 3D printing cost-savings in orthopedic and maxillofacial surgery: cost analysis of operating room time sure and experiences with 3D printing. As 3D printing saved with 3D printed anatomic models and surgical guides. Acad Radiol. was a subset of a more extensive survey aimed at col- 2020;27(8):1103–13. lecting comprehensive radiology residency data, we were 5. Shine KM, Schlegel L, Ho M, et al. From the ground up: understanding the developing infrastructure and resources of 3D printing facilities in hospital- limited in the number of 3D printing questions we could based settings. 3D Print Med. 2022;8(1):21. include. 6. Ganapathy A, Chen D, Elumalai A, et al. Guide for starting or optimizing a 3D printing clinical service. Methods. 2022;206:41–52. 7. Williams A, McWilliam M, Ahlin J, et al. A simulated training model for laparo- Conclusion scopic pyloromyotomy: is 3D printing the way of the future? J Pediatr Surg. The residency training period is a formative stage that 2018;53(5):937–41. allows physicians to develop competency in their clini- 8. Jones TW, Seckeler MD. Use of 3D models of vascular rings and slings to improve resident education. Congenit Heart Dis. 2017;12(5):578–82. cal practice and gain exposure to their field. Radiology 9. Blohm JE, Salinas PA, Avila MJ, et al. Three-Dimensional Printing in Neu- is a specialty defined by the intersection of technology rosurgery Residency Training: a systematic review of the literature. World and medicine, and radiology residency programs may Neurosurg. 2022;161:111–22. 10. Langridge B, Momin S, Coumbe B, et al. Systematic review of the Use of consider integrating 3D printing educational material 3-Dimensional Printing in Surgical Teaching and Assessment. J Surg Educ. as a developing technology. A survey of radiology chief 2018;75(1):209–21. residents from accredited North American radiology 11. Boshra M, Godbout J, Perry JJ, et al. 3D printing in critical care: a narrative review. 3D Print Med. 2020;6(1):28. programs demonstrated that a minority of radiology resi- 12. Shetty A, Hammer M, Gould J, et al. Results of the 2014 survey of the dencies involve 3D printing in their current curricula and American Alliance of Academic Chief residents in Radiology. Acad Radiol. clinical practices. However, most respondents are inter- 2014;21(10):1331–47. 13. Yoo SJ, Thabit O, Kim EK, et al. 3D printing in medicine of congenital heart ested in learning 3D printing and incorporating it into diseases. 3D Print Med. 2015;2(1):3. their residency experience. Therefore, these data may be 14. Thiong’o GM, Bernstein M, Drake JM. 3D printing in neurosurgery education: used to inform radiology educators of potential benefits a review. 3D Print Med. 2021;7(1):9. 15. Galstyan A, Bunker MJ, Lobo F, et al. Applications of 3D printing in breast and resident-level interest in integrating 3D printing edu- cancer management. 3D Print Med. 2021;7(1):6. cation into radiology residency. 16. Mitsouras D, Liacouras PC, Wake N, et al. RadioGraphics update: medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics. 2020;40(4):E21–E3. Authors’ contributions 17. Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, et al. 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a KMM, GB, DB, and MJH were involved in conceptualization and project systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online. 2016;15(1):1–21. administration. DC, AG, and NA conducted formal analysis and writing of the original as well as the final draft. DHB, MJH, and FR reviewed and edited the primary draft. All authors reviewed the final manuscript. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in Funding published maps and institutional affiliations. The authors received no funding for this manuscript.

Journal

3D Printing in MedicineSpringer Journals

Published: Apr 27, 2023

Keywords: 3D printing; Radiology; Residency

There are no references for this article.