Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01595-w

REVIEW

Using 3D Printing to Improve Student Education of Complex Anatomy:

a Systematic Review and Meta‑analysis
David Salazar1 · Michael Thompson1 · Adam Rosen2 · Jorge Zuniga1

Accepted: 15 July 2022 / Published online: 1 August 2022

This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2022

Abstract
Objective Additive manufacturing has played an increasingly important role in the field of health care. One of the most
recent applications has been the development of 3D printed anatomical models specifically to improve student education.
The purpose of this review was to assess the potential for 3D printed models to improve understanding of complex anatomy
in undergraduate and medical/professional students.
Methods A systematic review was performed to investigate the different implementations of 3D printed anatomical models
in educational curricula. In addition, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess the differences in comprehension between
students who received 3D printed models as part of their instruction and those taught with traditional methods.
Results Of the 10 groups included in the meta-analysis, students whose educational experience included a 3D printed model
scored roughly 11% better on objective assessments compared to students who did not use such models (Hedge’s g = 0.742,
p < 0.001).
Conclusion Based on these findings, the use of 3D printed anatomical models as a method of education is likely to improve
students’ understanding of complex anatomical structures.

Keywords 3D printing · Anatomic model · Student · Education

Introduction When describing the potential benefits that 3D printed

anatomical models can have within the medical field, many
Within health care, 3D printers have been used to develop authors have previously outlined the potential for student
advanced prosthetic devices [1], implants for surgical inter- education [7, 8]. For example, experienced surgeons will
vention [2], guides for surgical planning [3, 4], and models likely not find as much value in using a 3D printed model
for educational purposes [5]. The development of patient- for a simple operation but may find the model useful in
specific 3D printed models has been used to plan complex complex surgeries that have other complications [9]. Nov-
surgeries and, in some cases, change the outcome of the ice surgeons, however, are more likely to find the models
entire operations [3]. Currently, 3D representations of useful for any operation, based on their overall lack of
unique surgical cases can be constructed using certain soft- experience [10]. The value of educational models ranges
ware but must be projected on a 2D screen, thus removing from teaching novice surgeons how to handle complex sur-
any perception of depth. Using 3D printing, it is possible geries to teaching undergraduate students pursuing health
to achieve a better understanding of the anatomical region care professions about simple anatomy. Utilization of 3D
of interest that includes both depth perception and tactile printing services in anatomical education could potentially
feedback that are currently lacking in virtual projections [6]. be used to bridge the large gap in experience by improv-
ing spatial comprehension of unique pathologies and other
* David Salazar complex anatomy topics in a format that is widely acces-
[email protected] sible to most audiences. While cadaver models and virtual
reality environments have also previously been used for
1
Department of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska these purposes, the cost of maintaining a cadaver lab is not
at Omaha, 6160 University Dr S, Omaha, NE 68182, USA
realistic for all institutions and virtual reality environments
2
School of Health and Kinesiology, University of Nebraska lack important tactile information [11]. In recent years,
at Omaha, 6160 University Dr S, Omaha, NE 68182, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1210 Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218

the average cost of 3D printing services has substantially Exclusion Criteria

decreased and become much more available, thus making
their application to most classrooms much more realistic. Articles that stated the model being developed was for a spe-
While there are numerous articles that look at the edu- cific surgical intervention were excluded from this review.
cational value of 3D printed anatomical models, the meth- Articles that lacked a method of assessment (i.e., quiz or lab
ods used to examine these effects are scattered through practical) were excluded entirely, and articles that did not
different types of quizzes, surveys, and examinations. include a control group (a group that did not receive a model)
There are a number of questions about the use of 3D were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Lastly, articles
printed models for educational purposes that remain to be that solely described the method of making anatomical models
answered before they become a regular implementation were also excluded.
within a classroom setting.
The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis Data Extraction
was to investigate if 3D printed anatomical models have had
a significant impact on improving comprehension of vari- For the qualitative analysis, extracted information included the
ous anatomy topics through objective measurements such study design, student education level, region of interest for model
as quizzes or in class assignments. We hypothesized that development, and major findings from the study. For articles
students who used a 3D printed model as a part of their included in the quantitative analysis, reported mean and stand-
education would perform better than those who did not on ard deviation values on student performance were extracted and
short-term assessments. converted to a percent value based on the total potential score.

Bias Assessment

Methods Articles were assessed for the impact on improving education on

the target student population. The STrengthening the Reporting
A comprehensive literature search was performed of pub- of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) risk of
lished articles. The search terms study inclusion, and data- bias assessment was used to evaluate the included full texts by
base search were performed by D.S. and M.T. according to two of the coauthors separately (D.S. and M.T.).
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Statistical Analysis

A Hedge’s g random effect model was used to calculate the

Search Details pooled effect size of the studies included in the quantitative
analysis. Analysis was performed on the differences in per-
A literature search was performed through three electronic formance scores between experimental group and the control
databases: Cochrane, Web of Science, and PubMed (Med- group (those who used a 3D printed model versus those who
line). The search was designed to target studies that used 3D did not). Percentage of answers correct in the assessment was
printed models as a part of students’ education. The included compared across studies. Scores that were not presented as
search terms were as follows: (1) 3D OR 3-dimensional OR percentages were converted based on total potential score.
three-dimensional print, (2) anatomic model, (3) student, When possible (n ≥ 3), sub-group analyses were conducted
and (4) learn OR education. Only full-text articles that were among the types of students assessed (e.g., medical students
accessible in English were included as a part of the system- and residents). In addition, heterogeneity of the data was also
atic review and meta-analysis. The search included articles calculated using I2 and Q-statistics. A fail-safe N was also cal-
from inception to May 4th, 2021, and papers published after culated to check for the potential bias of unreported studies. A
this date were not included. p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Inclusion Criteria Results

For the purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis, The workflow outlined in Fig. 1 initially identified 128
only full-text articles that were published in a peer-reviewed articles. After duplicates were removed, this number was
journal were included. Study designs included cohort stud- reduced to 101. After titles and abstracts were reviewed,
ies and randomized control trials. In addition, the method of the number of included articles was reduced to 31. After
model development had to utilize 3D printing specifically. full-text review, another 14 articles were excluded from

13
Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218 1211

the review based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, leav- excluded for not reporting mean and standard deviation
ing a total of 17 articles for the qualitative review [5, 7, values [7, 22]. The final list of studies that were included
8, 12–25]. All the studies reported significant positive in the meta-analysis included 10 original research articles
findings (the 3D printed model being found useful for [5, 12, 14–20, 25].
teaching purposes), with the major outcomes being out- Of the 10 articles included in the meta-analysis [5, 12,
lined in Table 1. Among the most common usages were 14–20, 25], two of the articles included two groups of
applications to the head and skull [14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22], interest [14, 17], meaning 12 total groups were compared
heart [13, 17, 23, 24], and lower limb orthopedics [5, 16, for the analysis. For the 12 groups (n = 12) included in
20, 25]. There were no major disputes across assessors in the quantitative analysis, performance assessments after
the STROBE scoring. The average STROBE score was instruction using the 3D printed model were compared to
15.94 ± 2.14 with scores ranging between 12 and 20, indi- traditional teaching methods that lack these supplementa-
cating a moderate level of study quality. Of these 17, 7 tions. These assessments were converted to percentages
were removed for having insufficient data (comparisons of for similar comparisons. Most of the assessments used
assessment to a control group with mean scores reported) their own measurement techniques in the form of quizzes
[7, 8, 13, 21–24]. While 12 randomized control trials were or rated performance assessments. The average score for
identified for the meta-analysis, 2 of the articles were students who used the model across the included studies

Fig. 1  Search workflow demon-

strating the number of articles Records idenfied through Addional records idenfied
that were available from the database search through other sources
initial database search to final (n = 128) (n = 0)
inclusion in the qualitative and
quantitative reviews

Records aer duplicates

removed
(n = 101)

Records excluded from tle

screening
(n = 50)

Abstracts screened
(n = 51)

Abstracts not relevant to

research queson
(n = 20)
Full-text arcles assessed
for eligibility
(n = 31)
Full-text arcles excluded,
for lack of quantave
measure
(n = 14)
Studies included in
qualitave synthesis
(n = 17)

Studies included in
quantave synthesis
(meta-analysis)
(n = 10)

13
 Table 1  Study breakdown for all studies included in the systematic review reporting their study design, population, objectives for model development, and outcomes. Studies that were included
1212

in the meta-analysis are denoted by *

Reference Study design Education level Objective Major findings STROBE

13
score

*AlAli et al. [19] Randomized control trials (n = 67) Medical students Models of child cleft lip and palate were Models improved percentage of knowledge 14
developed for hands on seminars gained (p = 0.038) and self-reported
learning experience (p = 0.005) and
visualization (p = 0.001)
*Awan et al. [20] Randomized control trial (n = 22) Radiology residents Model colored into different segments to show Radiology students who received the model 15
different acetabular fracture patterns performed better on a post-test than those
who did not (p = 0.02)
Backhouse et al. [21] Cohort study First-year ocular anatomy students Investigate students’ perceptions of the impact Ability to physically manipulate the model 17
(n = 69) the 3D printed orbit had on their learning, and accessibility significantly helped
predicting that students would find the 3D learning (p < 0.001). 94% of participants
printed orbit an engaging and valuable agreed that the 3D printed orbit helped
resource understand the spatial relationship between
the orbital bones
*Cai et al. [5] Randomized control trial (n = 35) First-year medical students Observe differences between didactic learning Students who used the knee simulator model 14
and simulation model learning of the knee performed better than the didactic learning
joint between sexes group on the 11-question quiz (p < 0.01)
Chen et al. [22] Randomized control trial (n = 79) Third-year medical students Compare the learning efficiency of 3D printed The 3D printed group was better than the 17
skulls with that of cadaveric skulls and atlas other two groups in total score (p = 0.044)
and scores of lab test (p = 0.049)
Costello et al. [23] Cohort study (n = 29) 16 medical students, 13 premedical students Ventricular septal defect 3D printed models for All students reported significant 18
educational curriculum for premedical and improvement in the areas of knowledge
medical students acquisition (p < 0.0001), knowledge
reporting (p < 0.0001), and structural
conceptualization (p < 0.0001) of VSDs
following completion of the seminar
Garas et al. [24] Cohort study 11 first-year undergraduate students, 13 third- External heart, shoulder, and thigh models Students got significantly more answers 17
(n = 23) year students compared to plastinated cadaveric models correct with the model (p < 0.0001)
*Hojo et al. [25] Randomized control trial (n = 102) 34 medical students, 34 residents, 34 surgeons Model used to explain lateral pelvic lymph node Students using the 3D printed models 17
dissection had performed better than controls on a
number of short and long tests (p ≤ 0.05)
Kong et al. [7] Randomized control trial (n = 92) First-year medical students Model based on cadaveric information of liver Models were reported more useful that the 13
without hepatic disease to show different traditional anatomic atlas (p < 0.05)
segments
*Lane et al. [18] Randomized control trial (n = 44) Second-year medical students Models developed to replicate craniosynostosis The results of some individual scores 16
for repair through plastic surgery were significant; however, there was
no significant difference between the
experimental and the control group
(p = 0.38)
*Li et al. [12] Randomized control trial (n = 120) First- and second-year medical students Students were randomized into three teaching The use of a 3D printed model improved 17
module groups [two-dimensional computed scores compared to 2D images
tomography images (CT), 3D, or 3D printed] (p < 0.0001), but not more than 3D
and asked to answer 10 key anatomical and 4 imaging groups (p = 0.0508). Students in
evaluative questions the 3D printed model group were also able
to complete the evaluations significantly
faster (p < 0.0001 vs. CT, p = 0.0006 vs.
3D image)
Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218
 Table 1  (continued)
Reference Study design Education level Objective Major findings STROBE
score

Mogali et al. [8] Cohort study (n = 15) Second-year MBBS students A multi-colored model was developed of the 73% of the students felt that the 3D printed 16
upper limb and compared to plastinated model improved their understanding
models (4 ± 0.93 out of 5)

Smerling et al. [13] Cohort study (n = 45) First-year medical students Explore the impact on medical student learning Strong positive correlation was found 13
of incorporation of 3D printed models for a between mean increase in perceived
wide array of congenital heart disease lesions knowledge and complexity of CHD
during a teaching workshop (p = 0.03) 74.2% of students rated 3D
printed models were helpful in their
understanding of PS (mean ± SD 3.8 ± 1.0
out of 5)
*Tanner et al. [14] Randomized control trial (n = 123) Undergraduate, graduate, medical, dental, and Skull model displaying specific regions of Students with the 3D printed model 20
Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218

PA students interest performed better than with the traditional

model (p = 0.001) and reported it as more
useful (p < 0.05)
*White et al. [17] Randomized control trial (n = 60) Pediatric residents and pediatric/emergency Differences in education of heart models The group that didn’t receive a 3D printed 17
medicine residents displaying ventricular septal defects and model performed better on the ventricular
Tetralogy of Fallot septal defect examination (p = 0.012),
while the group that did receive a 3D
printed models performed better on the
Tetralogy of Fallot (p = 0.037)
*Wu et al. [16] Randomized control trial (n = 90) Medical students Use of 3D printed models versus radiographic Test-taking times for the pelvis and the spine 12
images as a technique for the education of for the traditional radiographic image
medical students about bone spatial anatomy group were significantly longer than
and fractures the test-taking times for the 3D printed
model group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002,
respectively)
*Yi et al. [15] Randomized control trial (n = 60) Second-year medical students Evaluate the educational effect of 3D printed Students in the 3DPM and 3DI groups 18
models (3DPMs), 3D images (3DIs), performed significantly better than those
and 2-dimensional images (2DI) for the in the 2DI group in terms of the practice
ventricular system test score (3DPM group vs. 2DI group,
p < 0.001; 3DPM group vs. 2DI group,
p < 0.009) and total score (3DPM group
vs. 2DI group, p < 0.001; 3DI group vs.
2DI group, p < 0.025)

13
1213
1214 Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218

Table 2  Summary statistics for pooled effect size. Analysis 1 includes studies focused on medical students, and analysis 4 included the stud-
all applicable studies, analysis 2 excludes Li et al. and the ventricular ies focused on residents
septal defect group by White et al. [12, 17], analysis 3 included the

Analysis n Mean ∆ (95% CI) p Q I2 Fail-safe N

Analysis 1 12 0.771 (0.405, 1.137) < 0.001 49.034 77.567 233

Analysis 2 10 0.742 (0.560, 0.924) < 0.001 3.827 < 0.001 157
Analysis 3 6 1.056 (0.562, 1.550) < 0.001 23.808 78.999 123
Analysis 4 3 0.263 (− 0.968, 1.493) 0.676 15.055 86.715 0

was 73.41 ± 14.01, and 62.63 ± 14.13 for those who did experimental group to the control group (Fig. 2). For this
not. A large, significant mean effect was found (g = 0.771, second analysis, there was a much smaller I2 value, indicat-
p < 0.001) in post-assessment performance when compar- ing more homogeneity within the data (Fig. 3).
ing the 3D printed model groups performance scores to Of the 12 included comparisons, six were exclusive to
the 2D image traditional learning groups (Table 2). The medical students [5, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19], three contained resi-
number of questions used in the assessments ranged from dents [17, 20], two had a mixture of undergraduate, graduate,
7 to 15 questions unique to the region represented by the and medical students [14], while one had a mix of medical
model. A large I2 value was calculated from this analysis, students and residents [25]. Therefore, sub-group analyses
indicating a high probability of heterogeneity within the were conducted for the medical students and the resident
data (I2 = 77.567). When including all the studies in the comparisons. In the medical student population, the groups
quantitative analysis, we found the results to be heteroge- that received a 3D printed model performed significantly
neous (Q = 49.034, I2 = 77.567, p < 0.001). better than those who did not (p < 0.001); however, there was
Further investigation found two outliers within the data- no significant difference between the model and no-model
set. In the study by Li et al., the experimental group who groups in the residency population (p = 0.676) (Table 2).
received the 3D printed models did significantly better than
the control groups who did not receive the models [12].
Additionally, one of the groups in the study by White et al. Discussion
actually found that the control group performed better than
the experimental group that received the 3D printed mod- The results from this systematic review show that the incor-
els [17]. In the study by Li et al. the experimental group poration of a 3D printed anatomic model to supplement
who received the models scored an average of 71.75 ± 14.35 student education can be utilized for several different appli-
which was similar to the total average; however, there was cations. Furthermore, the meta-analysis performed shows
a large difference in the control group who only scored a that when compared to traditional teaching methods, the
41.15 ± 13.30, which was well below the average of the incorporation of a 3D printed model significantly improves
pooled control group mean [12]. This difference led to a complex anatomy comprehension. The students who received
much greater effect size in the study by Li et al. and con- the models consistently performed better than those who
tributed to the greater heterogeneity within the data [12]. In were taught with more traditional methods (i.e., CT scans
the case for the ventricular septal defects group comparison or textbook images), showing a benefit to having a tangible
in the study by White et al., the control group actually per- model that can be manipulated rather than static 2D images.
formed better than the experimental group that received the Comprehension of basic anatomy skills will directly impact
model [17]. The experimental group scored an average of patient quality of care, and as medicine continues to advance,
72.43 ± 16.29, while the control group scored an average of the need to have a deep understanding of basic anatomy to
85.71 ± 6.14 [17]. treat unique pathologies will only increase. Improvements
A second analysis was performed with the exclusion of in anatomical understanding can play a large role in prepar-
the aforementioned studies by Li et al. and the ventricu- ing for complex surgeries, especially for students with less
lar septal defect study group in the article by White et al. overall experience than more senior surgeons.
(n = 10), and the average score for the model group was 3D printing for medical purposes is still a fairly new tech-
73.68 ± 13.80, while the group that did not use a 3D printed nology, with many recent innovations occurring within the
model had an average of 62.47 ± 15.03 [12, 17]. These last 10 years as printers have become more available. There-
results were found to be much more homogenous (Q = 3.827, fore, the quality of papers included in the systematic review
I2 < 0.001, p = 0.922), in addition to producing a significant is only of a moderate quality. The results of the STROBE
mean effect size (g = 0.742, p < 0.001) when comparing the risk of bias assessment ranged from 12 to 20, with a mean

13
Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218 1215

Fig. 2  Forrest plot of the Hedge’s g values by the author of each study. A Analysis of all studies included in the review. B Exclusion of the study
by Li et al. and the ventricular septal defect group by White et al. [12, 17]

value of 15.94 ± 2.14. Several of the studies did not address Sub-analysis could not be performed for the undergraduate
the potential lack of bias, as well as report all of their results. population due to an insufficient sample size (n < 3).
As more institutions begin to adapt this method of educating The application of this technology can easily be seen
students, we are likely to see higher quality research emerge when investigating the various model applications. As
with similar assessments. stated previously, the most common uses were the head
One major discrepancy among the articles was the meth- and skull [14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22], heart [13, 17, 23, 24],
ods used for assessment, which ranged from a full lab practi- and lower limb orthopedics [5, 16, 20, 25]. These regions
cal to small question surveys. It has previously been reported are notorious for being extremely complex and can signif-
that major discrepancies currently exist between educational icantly impact a patient’s quality of life. The results from
tools due to the difference in their desired outcomes [26]. In other regions such as the liver [7] and arm [8] show that
this study, there were a number of simple question surveys while these regions will still see benefit from 3D model
which were asked by a majority of the studies, then there implementation, the need for models in these regions is
were longer and more specific exams asked by Wu et al., not as demanding.
and lastly, there were studies like Hojo et al. that were more The focus of this review was to investigate the impact
interactive assessments and required students to correctly anatomical models have on improving education specifi-
identify labels placed on the models [16, 25]. While the cally for human anatomy. We did find, however, simi-
methods of assessment may have been different, the results lar results for animal models during the abstract review
were very similar. The group that used the 3D printed model process [27, 28]. One previous study by Preece et al.
as a part of their assessment consistently outperformed the found similar results to this study with the application
group using only 2D CT images and textbook instructions. of an equine hoof model, where students performed bet-
Level of education is another important aspect to con- ter with the utilization of a 3D model compared to with-
sider. Of the included studies, 12 included medical students out (p < 0.001) [27]. Another equine study conducted by
[5, 7, 12–16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25], 3 included residency stu- Johnson et al. did not find significant differences between
dents [17, 20, 25], and 3 included undergraduate students the group that used a 3D printed animal model and those
[14, 16, 24]. However, even at these different levels, there who did not use a model when helping teach veterinary
still seemed to be an improvement with the group that used anatomy (p = 0.5732), but students who received a model
the 3D printed models. The results of the sub-analyses found reported more enjoyment during learning [28]. While ani-
that there was a significant improvement in the medical mal models are outside the scope of this study, there is
student population (p < 0.001); however, no improvement likely a benefit to animal anatomy education from the
was found within the residency population (p = 0.676). incorporation of 3D printed models.

13
1216 Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218

Fig. 3  Funnel plot of the

Hedge’s g values for each of
the studies by standard error. A
Analysis of all studies included
in the review. B Exclusion of
the study by Li et al. and the
ventricular septal defect group
by White et al. [12, 17]

There were several limitations to this study. The lim- Additionally, only the randomized control trials were
ited number of randomized control trials used for the used for the meta-analysis to make accurate comparisons,
meta-analysis left the final sample size relatively small which limited the number of included studies. The arti-
since the cohort studies did not include a control group. cle by Chen et al. only reported median values and inter-
This was especially an issue when attempting to perform quartile ranges [22]. While the reported values were likely
sub-analyses groups such as undergraduate groups, where similar to the mean values, it was excluded from the final
there were not a sufficient number of examples to produce analysis. The study by Kong et al. only reported p-values,
meaningful results. While ten studies do shed some light and was also not included in the final analysis [7].
on the subject, it may not be enough from which to draw
large conclusions. Additionally, it is unknown the level
of expertise of the people developing the 3D models. As Conclusion
previously explained by Tetsworth et al., there is a large
discrepancy and steep learning curve associated with 3D The results from this systematic review with meta-analysis
model development that affects the accuracy of the final suggest that using 3D printed anatomical models to help
product [9]. Indeed, the models included in this study teach both undergraduate and graduate students various
were likely sufficient at displaying the necessary infor- anatomy topics will likely improve their short-term com-
mation since there were significant findings in nearly all prehension. However, there is currently a lack of literature
their applications. showing the longevity of these results or the direct impact

13
Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218 1217

they have on patient care, with these two measurements 8. Mogali SR, Yeong WY, Tan HKJ, Tan GJS, Abrahams PH, Zary
requiring a more longitudinal approach. Due to how recent N, et al. Evaluation by medical students of the educational value
of multi-material and multi-colored three-dimensional printed
the implementation of 3D printing is within the medical models of the upper limb for anatomical education. Anat Sci
field, it could be that these studies are currently underway Educ. 2018;11:54–64.
or have not yet been performed by current research groups. 9. Tetsworth KD, Mettyas T. Overview of emerging technology in
Ideally, studies that observe these applications will be pub- orthopedic surgery. Tech Orthop [Internet]. 2016;31:143–52.
Available from: http://​conte​nt.​wkhea​lth.​com/​linkb​ack/​openu​rl?​
lished to support the use of 3D printed models for student sid=​WKPTLP:​landi​ngpag​e&​an=​00013​611-​20160​9000-​00002
education. 10. Waran V, Narayanan V, Karuppiah R, Pancharatnam D, Chandran
H, Raman R, et al. Injecting realism in surgical training—initial
simulation experience with custom 3D models. J Surg Educ [Inter-
Author Contribution All authors contributed substantially to this net]. Elsevier; 2014;71:193–7. Available from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​
study. Conception, literature review, analysis, and composition were 1016/j.​jsurg.​2013.​08.​010
performed by DS. MT assisted with the literature search and review. 11. Gasco J, Holbrook TJ, Patel A, Smith A, Paulson D, Muns A, et al.
AR assisted with the data-analysis and meta-analysis interpretation. Neurosurgery simulation in residency training: feasibility, cost,
JZ assisted with revisions and supervision. All authors reviewed and and educational benefit. Neurosurgery. 2013;73:39–45.
approved the final document before submission. 12. Li Z, Li Z, Xu R, Li M, Li J, Liu Y, et al. Three-dimensional
printing models improve understanding of spinal fracture—
a randomized controlled study in China. Sci Rep [Internet].
Funding This research was partially funded by the National Institute of 2015;5:11570. Available from: https://w ​ ww.c​ ochra​ nelib​ rary.c​ om/​
Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health centr​al/​doi. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​centr​al/​CN-​01180​013/​full
under Award Number R01NS114282 and the Biomechanical Rehabili- 13. Smerling J, Marboe CC, Lefkowitch JH, Pavlicova M, Bacha
tation and Manufacturing Initiative (BRMI). E, Einstein AJ, et al. Utility of 3D printed cardiac models for
medical student education in congenital heart disease: across a
Declarations spectrum of disease severity. Pediatr Cardiol [Internet]. Springer
US; 2019;40:1258–65. Available from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests. s00246-​019-​02146-8
14. Tanner JA, Jethwa B, Jackson J, Bartanuszova M, King TS,
Bhattacharya A, et al. A three-dimensional print model of the
pterygopalatine fossa significantly enhances the learning experi-
ence. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13:1–13.
References 15. Yi X, Ding C, Xu H, Huang T, Kang D, Wang D. Three-dimensional
printed models in anatomy education of the ventricular system: a ran-
1. Zuniga J, Katsavelis D, Peck J, Stollberg J, Petrykowski M, Carson domized controlled study. World Neurosurg [Internet]. 2019;125:e891‐
A, et al. Cyborg beast: a low-cost 3D-printed prosthetic hand for e901. Available from: https://​www.​cochr​aneli​brary.​com/​centr​al/​
children with upper-limb differences. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8. doi/. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​centr​al/​CN-​02012​582/​full
2. Cui J, Chen L, Guan X, Ye L, Wang H, Liu L. Surgical planning, 16. Wu A-M, Wang K, Wang J-S, Chen C-H, Yang X-D, Ni W-F, et al.
three-dimensional model surgery and preshaped implants in treat- The addition of 3D printed models to enhance the teaching and
ment of bilateral craniomaxillofacial post-traumatic deformities. learning of bone spatial anatomy and fractures for undergraduate
J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. American Association of Oral students: a randomized controlled study. Ann Transl Med AME
and Maxillofacial Surgeons; 2014;72:1138.e1–1138.e14. Avail- Publishing Company. 2018;6:403–403.
able from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​joms.​2014.​02.​023 17. White SC, Sedler J, Jones TW, Seckeler M. Utility of three-
3. Igami T, Nakamura Y, Hirose T, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, Sugawara dimensional models in resident education on simple and com-
G, et al. Application of a three-dimensional print of a liver in hepa- plex intracardiac congenital heart defects. Congenit Heart Dis.
tectomy for small tumors invisible by intraoperative ultrasonogra- 2018;13:1045–9.
phy: preliminary experience. World J Surg. 2014;38:3163–6. 18. Lane JC, Black JS. Modeling medical education: the impact of
4. Salazar D, Huff TJ, Cramer J, Wong L, Linke G, Zuniga J. Use three-dimensional printed models on medical student education
of a three-dimensional printed anatomical model for tumor man- in plastic surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31:1018–21.
agement in a pediatric patient. SAGE Open Med Case Reports. 19. AlAli AB, Griffin MF, Calonge WM, Butler PE. Evaluating the
2020;8:2050313X2092760. use of cleft lip and palate 3D-printed models as a teaching aid. J
5. Cai B, Rajendran K, Bay BH, Lee J, Yen C-C. The effects of a Surg Educ [Internet]. 2018;75:200‐208. Available from: https://​
functional three-dimensional (3D) printed knee joint simulator in www.​cochr​aneli​brary.​com/​centr​al/​doi/. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
improving anatomical spatial knowledge. Anat Sci Educ [Internet]. centr​al/​CN-​01665​715/​full
2019;12:610‐618. Available from: https://​www.​cochr​aneli​brary.​ 20. Awan OA, Sheth M, Sullivan I, Hussain J, Jonnalagadda P, Ling
com/​centr​al/​doi/. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​centr​al/​CN-​02005​754/​ S, et al. Efficacy of 3D printed models on resident learning and
full understanding of common acetabular fracturers. Acad Radiol
6. Ploch CC, Mansi CSSA, Jayamohan J, Kuhl E. Using 3D print- [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2019;26:130–5. Available from: https://​
ing to create personalized brain models for neurosurgical train- doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​acra.​2018.​06.​012
ing and preoperative planning. World Neurosurg. Elsevier Inc; 21. Backhouse S, Taylor D, Armitage JA. Is this mine to keep? Three-
2016;90:668–74. dimensional printing enables active, personalized learning in
7. Kong X, Nie L, Zhang H, Wang Z, Ye Q, Tang L, et al. Do 3D anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12:518–28.
printing models improve anatomical teaching about hepatic seg- 22. Chen S, Pan Z, Wu Y, Gu Z, Li M, Liang Z, et al. The role of
ments to medical students? A randomized controlled study. World three-dimensional printed models of skull in anatomy education:
J Surg Springer International Publishing. 2016;40:1969–76. a randomized controlled trail. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2017;7:575.

13
1218 Medical Science Educator (2022) 32:1209–1218

Available from: https:// ​ w ww. ​ c ochr ​ a neli ​ b rary. ​ c om/ ​ c entr ​ a l/​ Dis Colon Rectum [Internet]. 2019;62:e64‐e65. Available from:
doi/. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​centr​al/​CN-​01628​053/​full https://​www.​cochr​aneli​brary.​com/​centr​al/​doi/ . https://​doi.​org/​10.​
23. Costello JP, Olivieri LJ, Krieger A, Thabit O, Marshall MB, Yoo 1002/​centr​al/​CN-​01957​598/​full
SJ, et al. Utilizing three-dimensional printing technology to assess 26. Cook DA, Ellaway RH. Evaluating technology-enhanced learning:
the feasibility of high-fidelity synthetic ventricular septal defect a comprehensive framework. Med Teach. 2015;37:961–70.
models for simulation in medical education. World J Pediatr Con- 27. Preece D, Williams SB, Lam R, Weller R. “Let’s get physical”:
genit Hear Surg. 2014;5:421–6. advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and
24. Garas M, Vaccarezza M, Newland G, McVay-Doornbusch K, textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. 2013;224:216–24.
Hasani J. 3D-printed specimens as a valuable tool in anatomy 28. Johnson KL, Hespel AM, Price JM, de Swarte M. Use of color-
education: a pilot study. Ann Anat [Internet]. Elsevier GmbH.; coded, three-dimensional-printed equine carpus models is pre-
2018;219:57–64. Available from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​aanat.​ ferred by students but does not result in statistically different
2018.​05.​006 academic performance. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2021;62:76–83.
25. Hojo D, Murono K, Nozawa H, Kawai K, Hata K, Tanaka T, et al.
A three-dimensional printed pelvic model is useful for education Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
about lateral lymph node dissection: a randomized controlled trial. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

13