Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Table 5 Summary of resident survey results (four residents interviewed)
Resident questionnaire | Public hospital | University hospital | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Media | Average | DS | Media | Average | DS | |
1. How reliable was the diagnosis of the articular damage (comminution and number of fragments) based only on computerized images? (1–10) | 7.3 | 7 | 1.61 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 1.62 |
2. How reliable was the diagnosis of the articular damage (comminution and number of fragments) after handling the 3D-printed model? (1–10) | 9 | 9 | 0.77 | 9.1 | 9 | 0.70 |
3. Did the availability of the 3D-printed model influence your surgical indication? (yes/no) | Yes = 6, 30% No = 14, 70% | Yes = 2, 10% No = 18, 90% | ||||
4. Did the 3D-printed model influence implant selection? (yes/no) | Yes = 20, 100% No = 0, 0% | Yes = 20, 100% No = 0, 0% | ||||
5. Would you use 3D-printed models for other fractures and would you suggest their use to any of your colleagues? (yes/no) | Yes = 20, 100% No = 0, 0% | Yes = 20, 100% No = 0, 0% | ||||
6. Have you ever simulated a trauma surgery with a 3D-printed model? (yes/no) | Yes = 0, 0% No = 20, 100% | Yes = 0, 0% No = 20, 100% | ||||
7. How much security and confidence would you have with surgery if you could always simulate it first? (1–10) | 8.3 | 8.5 | 0.78 | 8.3 | 8 | 0.64 |