Dear Editor,
It was our pleasure to read the article by Nusem et al. [1], who investigated the usefulness of three-dimensional printed (3DP) cardiac models in congenital heart disease (CHD) anatomy and pathology teaching. It was concluded that those models could be used in medical education when cadaveric specimens are unavailable, given that both were almost equally well perceived by the students. We would like to comment on this conclusion and note that, in our opinion, the use of those models in medical education should be primarily based on their effectiveness. If we focus on effectiveness, instead of students’ perceptions, the literature lacks evidence that 3DP heart models are better than (or even equal to) cadaveric specimens for medical students’ CHD anatomy education. When 3DP heart specimens were compared with other conventional anatomy teaching tools, the results did not adequately support the implementation of the former method. Although Karsenty et al. [2] showed that the short-term students’ knowledge about CHD was significantly improved after teaching via 3DP cardiac models, compared to 2D images, Lau and Sun [3] concluded that 3DP heart specimens, when they were added to conventional models, did not improve neither immediate nor long-term knowledge concerning CHD anatomy and pathophysiology. Thus, 3DP cardiac models could not be considered definitely better than more simple teaching tools. We certainly believe that the findings of the paper by Nusem et al. [1] are important, because there is generally lack of studies to compare cadaveric hearts with 3DP ones, regarding CHD anatomy teaching. We also believe that this study may stimulate further research to show if 3DP hearts can lead to better students’ academic performance than other methods. However, at present, there is evidence that 3DP cardiac models can achieve comparable educational outcomes with more simple, and more economical, modalities. A parameter that can stimulate further research is the degree of complexity of CHD. Smerling et al. [4] showed that, especially concerning complex CHD, 3DP hearts may be useful teaching tools. In conclusion, we believe that, to consider that 3DP hearts can be used instead of cadaveric ones (or other models) in CHD anatomy education, there is need for comparison of their effectiveness.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Nusem E, Bray L, Lillia J, Schofield L, Scott KM, Gunasekera H, Cheng TL. Utility of 3D printed models versus cadaveric pathology for learning: challenging stated preferences. Med Sci Educ. 2022;32(6):1513–1520. doi: 10.1007/s40670-022-01684-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Karsenty C, Guitarte A, Dulac Y, Briot J, Hascoet S, Vincent R, Delepaul B, Vignaud P, Djeddai C, Hadeed K, Acar P. The usefulness of 3D printed heart models for medical student education in congenital heart disease. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):480. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02917-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lau I, Sun Z. The role of 3D printed heart models in immediate and long-term knowledge acquisition in medical education. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2022;23(1):22. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2301022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Smerling J, Marboe CC, Lefkowitch JH, Pavlicova M, Bacha E, Einstein AJ, Naka Y, Glickstein J, Farooqi KM. Utility of 3D printed cardiac models for medical student education in congenital heart disease: across a spectrum of disease severity. Pediatr Cardiol. 2019;40(6):1258–1265. doi: 10.1007/s00246-019-02146-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]