ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Comparing cadaveric and 3D-printed laryngeal models in transcutaneous injection laryngoplasty.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of 3D-Printed nasal models in lacrimal surgery training.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing the Effectiveness of Digital 3D PDF vs. 3D-Printed Heart Models as Learning Aids for Echocardiography in Medical Students.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Comparing cadaveric and 3D-printed laryngeal models in transcutaneous injection laryngoplasty.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
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
Background: There is increasing focus on the development of high-quality simulation models for medical education. Cadaveric models, although considered more realistic, may be difficult to obtain and costly. The advent of three-dimensional (3D) printing has offered a low-cost, reliable, and reproducible alternative. This study sought to compare the utility of 3D-printed to cadaveric models for training in transcutaneous injection laryngoplasty (TIL). Methods: A simulation course with a cross-over design was employed. Video laryngoscopes were utilized for both the 3D and cadaveric models to assess the accuracy of injection into the vocal fold. Pre-procedure and post-procedure surveys were administered to evaluate understanding and comfort level on a Likert scale of 1-10. Each model was also rated on a 1-5 Likert scale for self-efficacy, fidelity, and educational value. Results: Pre- and post-survey data were completed by 15 otolaryngology residents and medical students. Mean pre-seminar understanding and comfort level were 3.7 and 2.2, respectively, compared to 6.9 and 5.9 ( Conclusion: There was a similar mean increase in understanding and comfort following use of the 3D and cadaveric models. 3D-printing can provide an excellent adjunct to, and eventually a potential replacement for hands-on cadaveric training in medical education, particularly for TIL. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.