Evaluating 3D-printed models for congenital heart disease: impact on parental anxiety and procedural understanding

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the impact of 3D-printed models on parental education and anxiety in parents of children with congenital heart disease (CHD) who are undergoing interventions or surgeries. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at LMU University Hospital and the German Heart Center Munich. Parents (n = 57) of pediatric CHD patients were randomized into two groups: a control group using standardized paper-based methods and an intervention group using additional 3D-printed models. Parental anxiety was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, while procedural understanding and satisfaction with the education were evaluated using custom-developed questionnaires. RESULTS: Both educational methods significantly increased procedural understanding (control 77.5% to 92.3%; 3D model: 77% to 89.4%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Significant reduction of anxiety was observed in both groups, (VAS reduction control: -0.9, p = 0.0342; 3D model: -1.1, p = 0.0116). Parents with medical background or those informed by pediatricians had lower anxiety whereas those seeking information online exhibited higher anxiety levels. CONCLUSION: Both educational methods significantly reduced parental anxiety and improved procedural understanding. 3D-printed models were well-received and will be integrated into routine practice to enhance education on CHD procedures and optimize physician-parent communication. IMPACT STATEMENT: Using additional 3D-printed models of congenital heart defects significantly reduces parental anxiety and increases procedural understanding of complex interventions or surgeries. Physicians are in desperate need of new visualization methods for an efficient patient education. This study underscores the need for tailored educational and psychological support for parents based on their previous experiences.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.