Matthias Kiesel, Inga Beyers, Adam Kalisz, Achim Wöckel, Anne Quenzer, Tanja Schlaiß, Christine Wulff, Joachim Diessner

• Background Simulation in the field of gynecological pelvic examination with educational purposes holds great potential. In the current manuscript we evaluate a 3D printed model of the female pelvis, which improves practical teaching of the gynecological pelvic examination for medical staff. Methods We evaluated the benefit of a 3D printed model of the female pelvis (Pelvisio®) as part of a seminar (“skills training”) for teaching gynecological examination to medical students. Each student was randomly assigned to Group A or B by pickingBackground Simulation in the field of gynecological pelvic examination with educational purposes holds great potential. In the current manuscript we evaluate a 3D printed model of the female pelvis, which improves practical teaching of the gynecological pelvic examination for medical staff. Methods We evaluated the benefit of a 3D printed model of the female pelvis (Pelvisio®) as part of a seminar (“skills training”) for teaching gynecological examination to medical students. Each student was randomly assigned to Group A or B by picking a ticket from a box. Group A underwent the skills training without the 3D printed model. Group B experienced the same seminar with integration of the model. Both groups evaluated the seminar by answering five questions on Likert scales (1–10, 1 = “very little” or “very poor”, 10 equals “very much” or “very good”). Additionally, both groups answered three multiple-choice questions concerning pelvic anatomy (Question 6 to 8). Finally, Group B evaluated the 3D printed model with ten questions (Question 9 to 18, Likert scales, 1–10). Results Two of five questions concerning the students’ satisfaction with the seminar and their gained knowledge showed statistically significant better ratings in Group B (6.7 vs. 8.2 points and 8.1 vs. 8.9 points (p < 0.001 and p < 0.009). The other three questions showed no statistically significant differences between the traditional teaching setting vs. the 3D printed model (p < 0.411, p < 0.344 and p < 0.215, respectively). The overall mean score of Question 1 to 5 showed 8.4 points for Group B and 7.8 points for Group A (p < 0.001). All three multiple-choice questions, asking about female pelvic anatomy, were answered more often correctly by Group B (p < 0.001, p < 0.008 and p < 0.001, respectively). The mean score from the answers to Questions 9 to 18, only answered by Group B, showed a mean of 8.6 points, indicating, that the students approved of the model. Conclusion The presented 3D printed model Pelvisio® improves the education of female pelvic anatomy and examination for medical students. Hence, training this pivotal examination can be supported by a custom designed anatomical model tailored for interactive and explorative learning.…