Table 4.
Perceptive feedback of participants to their teaching method
| No | Feedback questions |
Group 1—lecture group (median) |
Group 2—3D model group (median) |
p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | This method teaches clinically relevant anatomy | 2 | 1 | 0.10 |
| 2 | This method accurately depicts acetabular fracture types | 2 | 1 | 0.10 |
| 3 | This method improved 3D spatial comprehension of acetabular fractures | 2 | 1 | 0.40 |
| 4 | This method improves Xray interpretation | 2 | 1 | 0.26 |
| 5 | This method helps to improve CT scan interpretation | 3 | 2 | 0.19 |
| 6 | This method helps to better learn acetabular fracture classification | 2 | 1 | 0.31 |
| 7 | This method helps to understand surgical approach | 3 | 1 | 0.05 |
| 8 | This method helps to understand fracture reduction and surgical fixation | 3 | 1 | 0.12 |
| 9 | I would use this method to prepare for acetabular surgery | 2 | 1 | 0.10 |
| 10 | This method should be extended to teach other fractures | 3 | 1 | 0.03 |
based on ‘likert’ scale of 1–5 (1 – strongly agree, 2 – agree, 3 – neutral, 4 – disagree and 5 – strongly disagree)