Systematic review and meta-analysis of 3D-printing in otolaryngology education

• Published in: International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology 2022-04, Vol.155, p.111083-111083, Article 111083
• Main Authors: Leung, Gareth, Pickett, Arthur Travis, Bartellas, Michael, Milin, Ariana, Bromwich, Matthew, Shorr, Risa, Caulley, Lisa
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 3D-printing; Anatomy; Costs; Education; Otolaryngology; Surgical education
• ISSN: 0165-5876; 1872-8464
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111083

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has received increased attention in recent years and has many applications. In the field of otolaryngology surgery, 3D-printed models have shown potential educational value and a high fidelity to actual tissues. This provides an opportunity for trainees to gain additional exposure, especially as conventional educational tools, such as cadavers, are expensive and in limited supply. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the uses of 3D-printing in otolaryngology education. The primary outcomes of investigation were surgical utility, anatomical similarity, and educational value of 3D-printed models. Secondary outcomes of interest included country of implementation, 3D-printer materials and costs, types of surgical simulators, and the levels of training of participants. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar and previous reviews were searched from inception until June 2021 for eligible articles. Title, abstract, and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Data were analyzed using random-effects models. The National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A total of 570 abstracts were identified and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Of the 274 articles reviewed in full text, 46 articles met the study criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Surgical skill utility was reported in 42 studies (563 participants) and had a high degree of acceptance (84.8%, 95% CI: 81.1%–88.4%). The anatomical similarity was reported in 39 studies (484 participants) and was received positively at 80.6% (95% CI: 77.0%–84.2%). Educational value was described in 36 studies (93 participants) and had the highest approval rating by participants at 90.04% (87.20%–92.88%). A subgroup analysis by year of publication demonstrated that studies published after 2015 had higher ratings across all outcomes compared to those published prior to 2015. This study found that 3D-printing interventions in otolaryngology demonstrated surgical, anatomical, and educational value. In addition, the approval ratings of 3D-printed models indicate a positive trend over time. Future educational programs may consider implementing 3D-printing on a larger scale within the medical curriculum to enhance exposure to otolaryngology.