Article3D printing in medicine2025
Low-cost male urogenital simulator for penile implant surgery training: a 3D printing approach.
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.
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.
- Simulation-based training and education in laparoscopic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Simulation based training versus mentorship in the initial learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) surgery. The effects of simulation training on surgical success, complication rates, and surgeon workload: a prospective comparative study.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Nomogram for predicting postpartum pelvic floor dysfunction based on ultrasound and serum biomarkers FGF2 and HBP.American journal of translational research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.