Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39804506›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2025

Low-cost male urogenital simulator for penile implant surgery training: a 3D printing approach.

Zixi Wang, Carlo Saija, Nicholas Raison, Abdullatif Aydin, Zhouyang Xu, Katie Zuo, Kawal Rhode, Antonia Pontiki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Zixi WangDepartment of Surgical & Interventional Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. Zixi.2.Wang@kcl.ac.uk.
Carlo SaijaDepartment of Surgical & Interventional Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Nicholas RaisonMRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, London, UK.
Abdullatif AydinMRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, London, UK.
Zhouyang XuDepartment of Surgical & Interventional Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Katie ZuoKing's College London School of Medical Education, London, UK.
Kawal RhodeDepartment of Surgical & Interventional Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. kawal.rhode@kcl.ac.uk.
Antonia PontikiDepartment of Surgical & Interventional Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. antonia.pontiki@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPenile implant surgery is the standard surgical treatment for end-stage erectile dysfunction. However, the growing complexity of modern high-tech penile prostheses has increased the demand for more practical training opportunities. The most advanced contemporary training methods involve simulation training using cadavers, with costs exceeding $5,000 per cadaver, inclusive of biohazard fees. This study introduces an innovative and cost-efficient male urogenital simulator designed to enhance penile implant surgery training.

methodsUtilizing image segmentation of patient pre-operative computed tomography (CT) scans, combined with three-dimensional (3D) printing and silicone molding techniques, we developed a high-fidelity simulator replicating the anatomical structures of the male urogenital system. The simulator incorporates an innovative double-layer structural design encompassing the corpus spongiosum and glans, corpora cavernosa, testes, epididymides, and pelvic bones. Additionally, it utilizes a two-stage skin manufacturing process tailored for different skin regions. The simulator was produced at a low material cost of £10, with an average production time of 3 h. To evaluate its training efficacy, we conducted a penile implant surgery training session involving 15 urology trainees and surgeons ranging from specialty training levels ST3 to ST6. The session began with a demonstration of penile implant surgery and error detection. Trainees, averaging three per simulator, practiced corporotomy, dilation, measurement, penile prosthesis, and scrotal pump placement under expert guidance. Participants' feedback was collected using a Likert scale questionnaire, assessing learning, satisfaction, and anatomical accuracy.

resultsQuantitative analysis of the questionnaire responses indicated highly positive feedback from the participants. Satisfaction rates surpassed 96% in learning effectiveness, over 89% in overall satisfaction, and 86% in anatomical accuracy demonstration. The simulator was favourably reviewed by both urology trainees and experienced surgeons, highlighting its utility as a practical training tool. Its low production cost and high precision make it a viable alternative to current training models.

conclusionsThe development of this cost-efficient, anatomically accurate urogenital simulator through advanced imaging and additive manufacturing techniques represents a significant advancement in penile implant surgical training. This state-of-the-art simulator not only provides a realistic and practical training experience but also underscores the potential for 3D printing technologies to revolutionize medical education and training.

Indexed as

3D modelEvaluationPenile implant surgerySimulatorTraining

Identifiers

PMID39804506
PMCPMC11726939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.