ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Three-dimensional printed anatomical models as an educational tool for orthopaedic surgical trainees - A single institution experience.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2025. 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.
- Application of problem-based learning combined with three-dimensional visualization reconstruction technology in trauma orthopedics teaching and its impact on teaching satisfaction.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Three-Dimensional Bronchovascular Modelling in Sublobar Pulmonary Resection: A Tool for Personalised Thoracic Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the utility of three-dimensional (3D) anatomical models as an educational tool among Orthopaedic surgical trainees. Methods: Seven types of 3D anatomical models - humerus, elbow, ankle, calcaneum, knee, femur, and pelvis- based on patients' computational tomography (CT) scans were printed in the study institution and used by surgical trainees preoperatively. Responses were collected in the form of a Likert scale questionnaire. Descriptive statistics of participants' ratings were calculated. Non-parametric analysis using Wilcoxon test and Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to determine if effectiveness varied with gender, clinical experience, and anatomical model type. Design: Observational cross-sectional study. Setting: Single center study. Participant selection criteria: All participants within a period of 16 months who were Orthopaedic surgical trainees within the study institution and utilised 3D anatomical models preoperatively were selected for this study. Outcome measures and comparisons: Primary outcome was Likert scale ratings for three aspects - understanding of patients' anatomy, learning of a patient-specific orthopaedic condition, retention of anatomical knowledge. Results: This study revealed that 3D anatomical models were well-received as an educational tool among Orthopaedic surgical trainees. There were no significant differences between gender, clinical experience or anatomical model type regarding 3D models in improving understanding of patient anatomy and retention of anatomical knowledge (p < 0.05). There were significant differences among participants based on clinical experience regarding the use of 3D models in learning of the patient-specific orthopaedic condition (p = 0.0106). Conclusions: Preliminary results from this study demonstrate overall effectiveness of 3D models as an educational tool in Orthopaedic surgery, but is limited by the qualitative nature of data collected. Higher quality evidence is required to demonstrate that 3D anatomical models are effective tools to impart critical knowledge of anatomy to surgical trainees. Level of evidence: IV.
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.