Trial reportJournal of medical systems2025
Enhancing Cricothyroidotomy Training for Novices Using Three-Dimensional-Printed Patient-Specific Models of a Patient with Obesity.
Trial report in Journal of medical systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to enhance cricothyroidotomy training for novice practitioners using three-dimensional-printed patient-specific models based on computed tomography images of a patient with obesity, evaluate these models compared to conventional training phantoms, and suggest possible effective training methods. A prospective, randomised crossover study was conducted with 30 medical students with no prior cricothyroidotomy experience. Participants performed the procedure on a conventional and a patient-specific model. Performance was assessed using time, visual inspections, and a three-dimensional scanner to evaluate the accuracy of the cricothyroidotomy simulation. The correlation between total time and checklist times for procedural step skills was analysed. Furthermore, a post-study survey was conducted to evaluate participants' perceptions of the realism and utility of both simulators. Patient-specific simulators required a longer time (18.63 ± 6.96 s) to confirm tracheal position compared to conventional simulators (15.28 ± 6.96 s; p = 0.034). Conversely, conventional simulators required a longer time (44.86 ± 27.56 s) to intubate than patient-specific simulators (27.96 ± 9.73 s; p < 0.001). Patient-specific simulators exhibited a greater deviation from the intended puncture site (17.14 ± 8.03 mm) compared to conventional simulators (2.95 ± 1.25 mm; p < 0.001), despite high visual success rates for both models. Survey results showed significantly higher ratings for the patient-specific simulator in terms of fidelity, utility, and special features (p < 0.001). This study assessed both time and accuracy in evaluating and enhancing training and procedural outcomes, being the first to incorporate a three-dimensional scanner into assessing outcomes. The findings, along with positive participant feedback from the post-study survey, emphasise the need for specialised training programmes incorporating a three-dimensional-printed, patient-specific models that reflect challenging scenarios particularly involving patients with obesity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40459663What 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.