ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2022
Effectiveness of a newly-developed training module using 3D printing for the navigation during retrograde intrarenal surgery.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel robot-assisted flexible ureteroscope system(RAFUS): design, learning curve, ergonomics, and preclinical feasibility.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation and validation of 3D-printed anatomical urinary system model and virtual reality RIRS simulators in RIRS training: a comparative study.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of the newly-developed three-dimensional (3D) printed training module for navigation during retrograde intrarenal surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo specialists provided orientation to all trainees. The 3D printing model consisted of eight calyces in each kidney. One navigation time started from the moment when the endoscope entered the ureter. After navigation was completed, the navigation time was recorded. The goal was to perform ten navigation times for each side, starting from the right or the left side at random. After the experiment, all trainees were asked to fill out a questionnaire.
resultsThe average training period of all 17 trainees was 3.05±1.80 years. Eleven trainees (64.7%) had the experience of assisting surgery for <100 cases, and six trainees (35.3%) had the experience of assisting surgery for 100 to 500 cases. Nine trainees (52.9%) began training from the right, and eight trainees (47.1%) started from the left. The average navigation time of 308 trials was 153.4±92.6 seconds. The maximum and minimum navigation times were 354.3±177.2 seconds and 80.1±25.6 seconds. The mean navigation time of the first and the last trials of all trainees significantly decreased from 251.4±108.0 seconds to 93.9±33.2 seconds. The average reduction in navigation time was 201.3±133.3 seconds. Almost all trainees were satisfied with the training.
conclusionsThe newly-developed 3D printing navigation training module seems to be adequate to improve surgical skills of flexible ureteroscopy.
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.