Comprehensive evaluation of aortic disease by in-vivo 4D flow MRI and 3D printing of patient-specific models: a feasibility study

Table 1 Clinician Survey Results

Inquiry	Strongly Agree (5)	Agree (4)	Neutral (3)	Disagree (2)	Strongly Disagree (1)	Mean	Std Deviation
(*) 3DP helped with visualization of this case	2 (22%)	7 (78%)	0	0	0	4.23	0.44
3DP can generally help visualize patient anatomy	3 (34%)	4 (44%)	2 (22%)	0	0	4.12	0.78
3DP + 4DFlow beneficial in my clinical practice	0	6 (67%)	3 (33%)	0	0	3.67	0.50
3DP helpful when discussing findings with colleagues	4 (44%)	5 (56%)	0	0	0	4.45	0.53
3DP helpful in educating students/residents	8 (89%)	1 (11%)	0	0	0	4.89	0.34
3DP helpful when discussing findings with patients	7 (78%)	2 (22%)	0	0	0	4.78	0.44
3DP can have value for intervention planning	1 (11%)	6 (67%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	0	4.78	0.83
I can see 3DP become important part of my practice	0	4 (44%)	5 (56%)	0	0	3.45	0.53
(†) 3DP time of 7-8 hrs for model is reasonable	1 (11%)	4 (44%)	1 (11%)	2 (23%)	1 (11%)	3.23	1.3
Expenditure of $15US for 3DP model is reasonable	4 (44%)	5 (56%)	0	0	0	4.45	0.53

3DP = 3D Printing
N = 9 (3 attending radiologists, 3 fellows, 2 residents, 1 medical student); all participants were male except one attending who was female
Average age 33.6, std = 4.6 yrs; None of the participants had any practical experience with 3DP
All values in Likert survey were standardized (Strongly Disagree = 1 to Strongly Agree = 5; N/A valued at Null). % are approximates.
(*) There was overwhelmingly positive response by clinicians to patient-specific 3D print model for the presented case.
(†) The area of highest clinician concern (length of time) also had widest spread (Std = 1.3)

ISSN: 1532-429X