End User Comparison of Anatomically Matched 3-Dimensional Printed and Virtual Haptic Temporal Bone Simulation: A Pilot Study

Objective Simulation has assumed a prominent role in education. It is important to explore the effectiveness of different modalities. In this article, we directly compare surgical resident impression of 2 distinct temporal bone simulations (physical and haptic). Study Design Research Ethics Board–approved prospective cohort study. Setting A haptic voxel-based virtual model (VM) and a physical 3-dimensional printed temporal bone model (PBM) were developed. Participants rated each construct on a number of parameters and performed a direct comparison of the simulations using a survey instrument that employed a 7-point Likert scale and rank lists. Subjects and Methods Ten otolaryngology residents dissected anatomically identical, matched physical and virtual models. Data for both simulations originated from 10 unique cadaveric micro–computed tomography images. Results Subjects rated the PBM drill quality as being more similar to cadaveric temporal bone than the VM (cortical bone mean: 5.5 vs 3.2, P = .011; trabecular bone mean: 5.2 vs 2.8, P = .004) and with better air cell system representation (mean: 5.4 vs 4.5, P = .003). Subjects strongly agreed that both simulations are effective educational tools, but they rated the PBM higher (mean: 6.7 vs 5.4, P = .019). Notably, subjects agreed that both modalities should be integrated into training, but they were more favorably inclined toward the PBM (mean: 7.0 vs 5.5, P = .002). In direct comparison, the PBM was the preferred simulation in 7 of 9 educational domains. Conclusions Appraisal of a PBM and a VM found both to have perceived educational benefit. However, the PBM was considered to have more realistic physical properties and was considered the preferred training instrument.