The utility of three-dimensional modeling and printing in pediatric surgical patient and family education: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) modeling and printing are increasingly being used in surgical settings. This technology has several applications including pre-operative surgical planning, inter-team communication, and patient education and counseling. The majority of research on 3D technology has focused on adult populations, where it has been found to be a useful tool for educating patients across various surgical specialties. There is a dearth, however, of research on the utility of 3D modeling and printing for patient and family education in pediatric populations. Our objective was to systematically review the current literature on how this modality is being utilized in pediatric surgical settings for patient and family education and counselling. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA and CASP guidelines. The MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to October 21, 2023, with no restrictions on language or geographical location. Citation chaining was used to ensure relevant papers were included. Articles were doubly screened and data was extracted independently by two authors. In the case of disagreement, a third author was consulted. Any articles pertaining to 3D modeling and printing in pediatric surgical settings for patient and family education and counseling were included. RESULTS: Six articles met inclusion criteria and were used for qualitative analysis. Two involved questionnaires given to parents of children to assess their understanding of relevant anatomy, surgical procedure, and risks after viewing conventional CT images and again after viewing a 3D-printed model. One involved a quasi-experimental study to assess young patients' pre-operative surgical understanding and anxiety after undergoing conventional teaching as compared to after viewing a 3D storybook. One involved questionnaires given to parents of children in control and study groups to assess the usefulness of 3D printed models compared to conventional CT images in their understanding of relevant anatomy and the surgical procedure. Another study looked at the usefulness of 3D printed models compared to 2D and 3D CT images in providing caregiver understanding during the pre-operative consent process. The last article involved studying the impact of using 3D printing to help patients understand their disease and participate in decision-making processes during surgical consultations. In all six studies, utilizing 3D technology improved transfer of information between surgical team members and their patients and families. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review suggests that 3D modeling and printing is a useful tool for patient and family education and counselling in pediatric surgical populations. Given the very small number of published studies, further research is needed to better define the utility of this technology in pediatric settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it