ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Validation of A 3D-printed simulator for training in endoscopic injection of bulking agent for vesicoureteral reflux: a pilot study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intravesical Injection of Bulking Agents: Validation of the Ghent University Hospital Porcine Teaching Model.European urology open science · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-based training plays a significant role in surgical education, especially in minimally invasive pediatric surgery and urology. This study aimed to evaluate a novel 3D-printed model as training tool for endoscopic injection of bulking agent.
methodsForty-three attendees and ten teaching faculty members were invited to complete a post hoc questionnaire after completing training sessions using the Fish Tank Simulation Model (FTSM). The survey consisted of a 7-question 5-point Likert scale to assess the model's realism (face validity) and its effectiveness as training tool (content validity).
resultsRegarding the training status, 20/53 (37.7%) participants were fellow and/or specialist in pediatric surgery and 33/53 (62.3%) were surgeons in training. Their level of confidence in endoscopic injection procedure was defined as novice (< 10 procedures per year) in 33/53 (62.3%), intermediate (10-20 procedures per year) in 10/53 (18.9%), and expert (> 20 procedures per year) in 10/53 (18.9%). Regarding both face validity and content validity assessments, no statistically significant differences were found between scores given by novice vs intermediate/expert groups. Similarly, no statistically significant differences emerged between scores given by participant vs faculty groups assessing the content validity of the FTSM. The FTSM was considered a good teaching tool for beginners by 44/53 (83%) and for pediatric surgeons/urologists by 38/53 (71.7%).
conclusionsThe 3D-printed Fish Tank Simulation Model proved to be a valuable, high-fidelity, easily accessible, cost-effective, hygienic, and domestic-use training tool for pediatric surgeons/urologists conducting the procedure. The model's user-friendly design and realistic environment enhanced learning opportunities for trainees, regardless of their experience level or training status. Nevertheless, further development is necessary, particularly in enhancing the realism of the ureteral hiatus and reproducing more complex anatomy, to make it beneficial for the training of advanced surgeons.
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.