ArticleBMJ open2022
Validation of a three-dimensional printed dry lab pancreaticojejunostomy model in surgical assessment: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D printing technology in hepatobiliary surgery education: a systematic review.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Quantifying the Viscoelastic Properties of Pancreatic Tissue: A Comparative Study of Human, Porcine and Engineered Hydrogel.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- 3D printing visualization combined with home-school-hospital collaboration for clinical pharmacology teaching.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Quantitative evaluation of 3D-printed physiological visualization tools in enhancing interns' knowledge retention and application.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- 5G-Assisted Remote Guidance in Laparoscopic Simulation Training Based on 3D Printed Dry Lab Models.The Indian journal of surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesUntil now, there have been few tools to evaluate whether a surgeon was technically ready to perform a safe pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). In the current study, we aimed to evaluate whether a three-dimensional model could mimic a real surgical situation and distinguish between surgeons of different levels of experiences.
designA three-dimensional PJ dry laboratory model was printed. Eight experienced pancreatic surgeons were tasked to evaluate the appearance and tactile sensation of the model. Proficiency was scored based on 15 surgeons with various levels of pancreatic experience performing a PJ on the three-dimensional model. Additionally, the time of manipulation and NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) scores were recorded for each operation.
settingOur study was conducted in multimedical centre in China.
resultsCompared with real surgical situations, this model had similar appearance (3.96±0.55 out of five points) and tactile sensation (3.85±0.46 out of five points) according to the expert evaluation. Additionally, the chief surgeon group scored the best in proficiency (based on NASA-TLX scores and operative time), and there were statistical differences for performances among surgeons of various levels (p
conclusionThe three-dimensional PJ model could mimic a real surgical situation and can distinguish between surgeons of different levels of experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.