English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background To compare different methods of three-dimensional representations, namely 3D-Print, Virtual Reality (VR)-Glasses and 3D-Display regarding the understanding of the pathology, accuracy of details, quality of the anatomical representation and technical operability and assessment of possible change in treatment in different disciplines and levels of professional experience. Methods Interviews were conducted with twenty physicians from the disciplines of cardiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthopedic surgery, and radiology between 2018 and 2020 at the University Hospital of Basel. They were all presented with three different three-dimensional clinical cases derived from CT data from their area of expertise, one case for each method. During this, the physicians were asked for their feedback written down on a pencil and paper questionnaire. Results Concerning the understanding of the pathology and quality of the anatomical representation, VR-Glasses were rated best in three out of four disciplines and two out of three levels of professional experience. Regarding the accuracy of details, 3D-Display was rated best in three out of four disciplines and all levels of professional experience. As to operability, 3D-Display was consistently rated best in all levels of professional experience and all disciplines. Possible change in treatment was reported using 3D-Print in 33%, VR-Glasses in 44%, and 3D-Display in 33% of participants. Physicians with a professional experience of more than ten years reported no change in treatment using any method. Conclusions 3D-Print, VR-Glasses, and 3D-Displays are very well accepted, and a relevant percentage of participants with less than ten years of professional work experience could imagine a possible change in treatment using any of these three-dimensional methods. Our findings challenge scientists, technicians, and physicians to further develop these methods to improve the three-dimensional understanding of pathologies and to add value to the education of young and inexperienced physicians.

Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display