Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan 30;8(1):5.
doi: 10.1186/s41205-022-00133-z.

Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display

Julian Louis Muff  1 , Tobias Heye  2 , Florian Markus Thieringer  3   4 , Philipp Brantner  5
Affiliations

Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display

Julian Louis Muff et al. 3D Print Med. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: - 3D-display; - 3D-print; - 3D-screen; - VR-glasses; - education; - three dimensional.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

PB and FMT are members of the editorial board “3D Printing in Medicine”.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Examples of prepared cases. a. Dislocated right condylar fracture of the mandible on 3D-Display (picture taken through passive shutter glasses). b. Angle mandibular fracture on VR-Glasses (corresponding two-dimensional view on computer-display). c. Proximal crossing of RIVA and RCX on VR-Glasses, CT View (corresponding two-dimensional view on computer-display). d. Posterior column fracture left, 3D-printed. Data: RIVA = Ramus interventricularis anterior, RCX = Ramus circumflexus
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fishman EK, Drebin B, Magid D, Scott WW, Ney DR, Brooker AF, et al. Volumetric rendering techniques: applications for three-dimensional imaging of the hip. Radiology. 1987;163(3):737–738. doi: 10.1148/radiology.163.3.3575725. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rubin GD. Computed tomography: revolutionizing the practice of medicine for 40 years. Radiology. 2014;273(2S):S45–S74. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14141356. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mitsouras D, Liacouras P, Imanzadeh A, Giannopoulos AA, Cai T, Kumamaru KK, George E, Wake N, Caterson EJ, Pomahac B, Ho VB, Grant GT, Rybicki FJ. Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. RadioGraphics. 2015;35(7):1965–1988. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015140320. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Geng J. Three-dimensional display technologies. Adv Opt Photonics. 2013;5(4):456–535. doi: 10.1364/AOP.5.000456. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chepelev L, Giannopoulos A, Tang A, Mitsouras D, Rybicki FJ. Medical 3D printing: methods to standardize terminology and report trends. 3D Print Med. 2017;3(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s41205-017-0012-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources