ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Italian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2024 December;31(4):181-7

DOI: 10.23736/S1824-4777.24.01684-X

Copyright © 2024 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Validation of a 3D printed modular simulation model for endovascular surgery training through further simulation on 3D anatomical model

Anna FORNASARI ¹ ✉, Ruben FORESTI ^{2, 3, 4}, Claudio BIANCHINI MASSONI ¹, Arianna MERSANNE ¹, Chiara MARTINI ⁵, Nicola CICALA ¹, Antonio FREYRIE ^{1, 2}, Paolo PERINI ^{1, 2}

¹ Unit of Vascular Surgery, Department of Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy; ² Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy; ³ Center of Excellence for Toxicological Research (CERT), University of Parma, Parma, Italy; ⁴ Italian National Research Council, Institute of Materials for Electronics and Magnetism (CNR-IMEM), Parma, Italy; ⁵ Department of Diagnostics, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy

BACKGROUND: The transformation of surgical education reflects a shift from traditional apprenticeship models towards simulation-based training, driven to improve patient safety, procedural efficiency, and the demand for consistent learning outcomes. This study further validates the Modular System for Endovascular Training (M-SET), a 3D-printed tool designed to enhance guidewire handling training in endovascular recanalization, following its initial validation in a previous published study. The current validation was conducted through additional simulations on 3D-printed anatomical model. The goal was to integrate simulation-based training using 3D model into the surgical curriculum and assess its impact on performance.
METHODS: The validation of M-SET presented in the current study involves the use of 3D printed anatomical model from real patients undergoing endovascular treatment. Vascular surgery residents (SR) and senior surgeons (SS) were enrolled and were divided into two groups. Group 1 (G1) trained with M-SET across three increasing difficulty levels before performing a simulation on a 3D anatomical model. Group 2 (G2) performed the same simulation without prior M-SET training. Simulation times and participant feedback on the realism and effectiveness of the models were collected.
RESULTS: Twelves participants were enrolled (8 SR and 4 SS). Participants in G1 completed the simulation faster than those in G2 (G1: 32±14 seconds vs. G2: 1 minute 21 seconds±37 seconds). SR who trained with M-SET achieved similar outcomes to SS without M-SET training (SR in G1: 38±14 vs. SS in G2: 42±19 seconds; P=1). Feedback indicated that the models were realistic and useful for practicing procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that training with M-SET and 3D-printed anatomical models can enhance surgical skills, particularly in handling guidewires through stenosed vessels. A larger sample size and real-case assessments are needed to confirm these findings.

KEY WORDS: Printing, three-dimensional; Professionalism; Vascular surgical procedures