Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 30, 2025
Utilizing a 3D Printed Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication Model to Shorten a Resident's Learning Curve
Published on: August 15, 2025
Role of 3D printing technology in paediatric teaching and training: a systematic review
Ashar Asif1, Elgin Lee2, Massimo Caputo1,3
1Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Insights
Patient-specific 3D printed models enhance paediatric medical education, improving test scores and confidence. Further research is needed to confirm long-term benefits of this 3D printing training tool.
Area of Science:
- Medical Education
- Surgical Training
- 3D Printing Applications
Background:
- UK undergraduate pediatric training is brief, leading to knowledge gaps in complex congenital conditions.
- Adult clinicians increasingly encounter complex pediatric pathologies requiring specialized understanding.
- Patient-specific 3D printed (3DP) models offer a novel approach for clinical training, particularly for rare conditions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of 3D printed models in training pediatricians, surgeons, medical students, and nurses.
- To evaluate the impact of 3DP models on objective and subjective educational outcomes compared to traditional methods.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of studies published between January 2010 and April 2020 from PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase.
- Inclusion of comparative and non-comparative studies involving medical students, postgraduate trainees, or clinical staff.
- Outcomes assessed included test scores, task completion times, self-reported confidence, user preferences, and production costs/time.
Main Results:
- Fifteen studies met review criteria; 10 focused on cardiovascular conditions.
- Participants using 3DP models showed improved test scores and faster procedure completion/landmark identification versus traditional methods.
- Positive user feedback indicated increased confidence and a desire for integrated 3DP use; models were cost-effective compared to off-the-shelf options.
Conclusions:
- 3D printed models demonstrate potential for enhanced user satisfaction and positive short-term educational outcomes in pediatric training.
- Evidence quality is currently low, with most studies being non-randomized and single-centered.
- Further multicentered, randomized studies with long-term follow-up and clinically assessed outcomes are required to validate benefits.
Background:
In the UK, undergraduate paediatric training is brief, resulting in trainees with a lower paediatric knowledge base compared with other aspects of medicine. With congenital conditions being successfully treated at childhood, adult clinicians encounter and will need to understand these complex pathologies. Patient-specific 3D printed (3DP) models have been used in clinical training, especially for rarer, complex conditions. We perform a systematic review to evaluate the evidence base in using 3DP models to train paediatricians, surgeons, medical students and nurses.
Methods:
Online databases PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched between January 2010 and April 2020 using search terms relevant to "paediatrics", "education", "training" and "3D printing". Participants were medical students, postgraduate trainees or clinical staff. Comparative studies (patient-specific 3DP models vs traditional teaching methods) and non-comparative studies were included. Outcomes gauged objective and subjective measures: test scores, time taken to complete tasks, self-reported confidence and personal preferences on 3DP models. If reported, the cost of and time taken to produce the models were noted.
Results:
From 587 results, 15 studies fit the criteria of the review protocol, with 5/15 being randomised controlled studies and 10/15 focussing on cardiovascular conditions. Participants using 3DP models demonstrated improved test scores and faster times to complete procedures and identify anatomical landmarks compared with traditional teaching methods (2D diagrams, lectures, videos and supervised clinical events). User feedback was positive, reporting greater user self-confidence in understanding concepts with users wishing for integrated use of 3DP in regular teaching. Four studies reported the costs and times of production, which varied depending on model complexity and printer. 3DP models were cheaper than 'off-the-shelf' models available on the market and had the benefit of using real-world pathologies. These mostly non-randomised and single-centred studies did not address bias or report long-term or clinically translatable outcomes.
Conclusions:
3DP models were associated with greater user satisfaction and good short-term educational outcomes, with low-quality evidence. Multicentred, randomised studies with long-term follow-up and clinically assessed outcomes are needed to fully assess their benefits in this setting.
Prospero Registration Number:
CRD42020179656.
