Article3D printing in medicine2025
Contribution of 3D visualization and printing in teaching lung segments anatomy.
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 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.
- Short-term perioperative outcomes of multi-arm uniportal robotic-assisted versus uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy for stage IA NSCLC: a propensity score-matched study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Research hotspots and frontier trends in the field of 3D printing in medical education from 2010 to 2025: a bibliometric analysis.3D printing in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe knowledge and understanding of the anatomy of lung segments is of great importance while segmentectomies are increasingly performed. To introduce new technologies and tools in anatomy teaching could help students to improve their skills.
methodsStudents participants (n = 16) were divided into 3 groups: traditional (n = 5), 3D visualization (n = 5) and 3D printing group (n = 6). Each student took a pre- and post-test exam. The traditional teaching group had lessons using 2D anatomical drawings, the 3D visualization group had lessons using a dedicated software allowing anatomical 3D reconstructions and the 3D printing group had lessons using 3D printed anatomical models.
resultsStudents of the whole cohort had significant better scores at the post test (mean score = 14.2) compared to the pretest (mean score = 7.9) (p = 0.0011). In the traditional and 3D printing groups, students had significant better scores in the post-test (mean scores = 17.7 and 14.2 respectively) than in the pre-test (mean scores = 8.2 and 7.5; p = 0.0247 and p = 0.0003 respectively). There was no significant difference between the pre and post-test scores for the 3D visualization group (mean score = 8.2 and 11.7 respectively) (p = 0.4347).
conclusionsThe knowledge of lung segment anatomy is poor among our medical students. Both traditional and 3D-printed teaching was shown effective. The contribution of 3D printed models would probably improve anatomy teaching among medical students. The introduction of this technology is instinctive and easy to use for both students and teachers. Furthermore, this technique was not particularly expensive to set up.
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.