Matsumoto, Jane S.

Background In the discipline of rhinology and endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS), 3-dimensional (3D) printing has found meaningful application in areas including preoperative surgical planning as well as in surgical education. However, its scope of use may be limited due to the perception among surgeons that there exists a prohibitively high initial investment in resources and time to acquire the requisite technical expertise. Nevertheless, given the ever decreasing cost of advancing technology coupled with the need to understand the complex spatial relationships of the paranasal sinuses and skull base, the use of 3D printing in rhinology and ESBS is poised to blossom. Objective Help the reader identify current or potential future uses of 3D printing technology relevant to their rhinologic clinical or educational practice. Methods A review of published literature relating to 3D printing in rhinology and ESBS was performed. Results Results were reviewed and organized into 5 overarching categories including an overview of the 3D printing process as well as applications of 3D printing including (1) surgical planning, (2) custom prosthetics and implants, (3) patient education, and (4) surgical teaching and assessment. Conclusion In the discipline of rhinology and ESBS, 3D printing finds use in the areas of presurgical planning, patient education, prosthesis creation, and trainee education. As this technology moves forward, these products will be more broadly available to providers in the clinical and educational setting. The possible applications are vast and have great potential to positively impact surgical training, patient satisfaction, and most importantly, patient outcomes.

ObjectiveTo examine the impact of 2‐dimensional (2D) illustrations and 3‐dimensonal (3D)–printed anatomic models of the frontal sinuses according to the International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification in the education of otolaryngology and radiology residents.Study DesignA crossover study design with half of the study participants randomized to the 2D illustration intervention first and the other half randomized to the 3D‐printed model first.SettingRegularly scheduled resident didactic lectures at a tertiary care center.Subjects and MethodsForty‐one otolaryngology and radiology residents were assessed with pre‐ and postintervention questionnaires that included subjective and objective methods of assessment.ResultsOverall, there was a statistically significant improvement in total number of answers correct and in confidence score between the pre‐ and postintervention assessments (P <. 0001). The primary outcome of order of intervention (ie, 2D → 3D vs 3D → 2D) did not result in statistically significant differences in postevaluation scores. In regard to the secondary outcome of learner preference for educational modality, radiology residents favored the 2D illustrations to understand anatomic relationships, while otolaryngology residents preferred the 3D model to be more helpful in surgical planning (P =. 0075).ConclusionThere is no difference between 2D‐illustrated and 3D‐printed International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification anatomic models in overall educational outcome, despite the preference of learners. Together, these models can be used as helpful tools in frontal sinus education for otolaryngology and radiology trainees.