# Comparing the Effectiveness of Digital 3D PDF vs. 3D-Printed Heart Models as Learning Aids for Echocardiography in Medical Students

## TL;DR

This study compares 3D-printed heart models and 3D PDFs as learning tools for echocardiography, finding that students prefer 3D-printed models but both methods are equally effective.

## Contribution

The study introduces a direct comparison of 3D-printed and 3D PDF heart models for echocardiography education, highlighting student preference and learning outcomes.

## Key findings

- Students using 3D-printed models reported higher satisfaction and learning quality than those using 3D PDFs.
- Echocardiographic knowledge scores did not differ significantly between the two groups.
- The control group's knowledge improved over time, while the experimental group's remained stable.

## Abstract

Reconciling echocardiographic images with heart anatomy in sonographic cross-sections is challenging. We compared use of 3D-printed heart models to 3D Portable Document Format (PDFs) heart models as learning aids in understanding echocardiography.

3D heart models were printed in five echocardiographic cross-sections: parasternal long axis, parasternal base short axis, parasternal ventricular short axis, apical four-chamber, and bicaval. Models were also reproduced as 3D PDFs on handheld tablets. Medical students were assigned to use 3D PDFs (control) or 3D-printed models (experimental) while performing transthoracic echocardiograms on standardized patients. Students were given immediate (after one session) and delayed (after four sessions in two months) post-tests measuring satisfaction, learning quality, and echocardiographic knowledge. Analysis was conducted using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing with a p-value threshold of 0.05, followed by post-hoc testing with adjustment for multiple comparisons when indicated.

One-hundred fifty students were surveyed. The experimental group reported greater satisfaction and learning quality relative to the control for the immediate and delayed periods (p < 0.01). Satisfaction and learning quality decreased in the control group from the immediate to the delayed period (p < 0.01); no difference was found in the experimental group. No difference in group echocardiographic knowledge scores was found with respect to the assigned 3D technology (p = 0.091). The control group’s knowledge score increased from the immediate to the delayed period (p < 0.01); no difference was found for the experimental group (p = 0.238).

3D PDF and 3D-printed heart models achieve similar efficacy in supplementing student learning of echocardiography. However, students may prefer 3D-printed heart models.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-025-02392-x.