Cargando…
Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display
BACKGROUND: To compare different methods of three-dimensional representations, namely 3D-Print, Virtual Reality (VR)-Glasses and 3D-Display regarding the understanding of the pathology, accuracy of details, quality of the anatomical representation and technical operability and assessment of possible...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8801110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35094166 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41205-022-00133-z |
_version_ | 1784642383424520192 |
---|---|
author | Muff, Julian Louis Heye, Tobias Thieringer, Florian Markus Brantner, Philipp |
author_facet | Muff, Julian Louis Heye, Tobias Thieringer, Florian Markus Brantner, Philipp |
author_sort | Muff, Julian Louis |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To compare different methods of three-dimensional representations, namely 3D-Print, Virtual Reality (VR)-Glasses and 3D-Display regarding the understanding of the pathology, accuracy of details, quality of the anatomical representation and technical operability and assessment of possible change in treatment in different disciplines and levels of professional experience. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with twenty physicians from the disciplines of cardiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthopedic surgery, and radiology between 2018 and 2020 at the University Hospital of Basel. They were all presented with three different three-dimensional clinical cases derived from CT data from their area of expertise, one case for each method. During this, the physicians were asked for their feedback written down on a pencil and paper questionnaire. RESULTS: Concerning the understanding of the pathology and quality of the anatomical representation, VR-Glasses were rated best in three out of four disciplines and two out of three levels of professional experience. Regarding the accuracy of details, 3D-Display was rated best in three out of four disciplines and all levels of professional experience. As to operability, 3D-Display was consistently rated best in all levels of professional experience and all disciplines. Possible change in treatment was reported using 3D-Print in 33%, VR-Glasses in 44%, and 3D-Display in 33% of participants. Physicians with a professional experience of more than ten years reported no change in treatment using any method. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-Print, VR-Glasses, and 3D-Displays are very well accepted, and a relevant percentage of participants with less than ten years of professional work experience could imagine a possible change in treatment using any of these three-dimensional methods. Our findings challenge scientists, technicians, and physicians to further develop these methods to improve the three-dimensional understanding of pathologies and to add value to the education of young and inexperienced physicians. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8801110 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88011102022-02-02 Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display Muff, Julian Louis Heye, Tobias Thieringer, Florian Markus Brantner, Philipp 3D Print Med Research BACKGROUND: To compare different methods of three-dimensional representations, namely 3D-Print, Virtual Reality (VR)-Glasses and 3D-Display regarding the understanding of the pathology, accuracy of details, quality of the anatomical representation and technical operability and assessment of possible change in treatment in different disciplines and levels of professional experience. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with twenty physicians from the disciplines of cardiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthopedic surgery, and radiology between 2018 and 2020 at the University Hospital of Basel. They were all presented with three different three-dimensional clinical cases derived from CT data from their area of expertise, one case for each method. During this, the physicians were asked for their feedback written down on a pencil and paper questionnaire. RESULTS: Concerning the understanding of the pathology and quality of the anatomical representation, VR-Glasses were rated best in three out of four disciplines and two out of three levels of professional experience. Regarding the accuracy of details, 3D-Display was rated best in three out of four disciplines and all levels of professional experience. As to operability, 3D-Display was consistently rated best in all levels of professional experience and all disciplines. Possible change in treatment was reported using 3D-Print in 33%, VR-Glasses in 44%, and 3D-Display in 33% of participants. Physicians with a professional experience of more than ten years reported no change in treatment using any method. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-Print, VR-Glasses, and 3D-Displays are very well accepted, and a relevant percentage of participants with less than ten years of professional work experience could imagine a possible change in treatment using any of these three-dimensional methods. Our findings challenge scientists, technicians, and physicians to further develop these methods to improve the three-dimensional understanding of pathologies and to add value to the education of young and inexperienced physicians. Springer International Publishing 2022-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8801110/ /pubmed/35094166 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41205-022-00133-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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. |
spellingShingle | Research Muff, Julian Louis Heye, Tobias Thieringer, Florian Markus Brantner, Philipp Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display |
title | Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display |
title_full | Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display |
title_fullStr | Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display |
title_short | Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display |
title_sort | clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3d-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3d-display |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8801110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35094166 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41205-022-00133-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT muffjulianlouis clinicalacceptanceofadvancedvisualizationmethodsacomparisonstudyof3dprintvirtualrealityglassesand3ddisplay AT heyetobias clinicalacceptanceofadvancedvisualizationmethodsacomparisonstudyof3dprintvirtualrealityglassesand3ddisplay AT thieringerflorianmarkus clinicalacceptanceofadvancedvisualizationmethodsacomparisonstudyof3dprintvirtualrealityglassesand3ddisplay AT brantnerphilipp clinicalacceptanceofadvancedvisualizationmethodsacomparisonstudyof3dprintvirtualrealityglassesand3ddisplay |