Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40686710›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025

Evaluation and validation of 3D-printed anatomical urinary system model and virtual reality RIRS simulators in RIRS training: a comparative study.

Mehmet Ezer, Tahsin Batuhan Aydoğan, Lazaros Tzelves, Andreas Skolarikos, Mehmet Uslu, Kemal Sarica, Emre Huri

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Mehmet EzerDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Kafhas University, Kars, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4422-6768
Tahsin Batuhan AydoğanDepartment of Urology, Kartal Dr. Lütfi Kırdar City Hospital, İstanbul, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2000-7790
Lazaros TzelvesDepartment of Uro-Oncology, University College of London Hospitals, UCLH, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4619-9783
Andreas SkolarikosSecond Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, Athens, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8338-6628
Mehmet UsluDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Kafhas University, Kars, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8370-3793
Kemal SaricaDepartment of Urology, Sancaktepe Şehit Prof. Dr. İlhan Varank Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2473-1313
Emre HuriDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5563-4527

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/aim: This study evaluates the use of a 3D-printed anatomical urinary system model (3D-AUSM) and a Virtual Reality RIRS Simulator (VRRS), for training in RIRS, based on real user feedback. Materials and methods: The 3D-AUSM was created using cadaver CT and MRI scans, and the data was transferred to a VR environment for simulation. A total of 43 inexperienced urology trainees participated in the theoretical phase of the RIRS training program. Of these, 32 trainees (Group T) who passed a proficiency exam proceeded to the hands-on training phase with the 3D-AUSM and VRRS models. Additionally, 17 experienced surgeons (Group S) were included in the study for validation purposes. Skill scores and procedure times were recorded for both groups, and participants completed surveys to evaluate content, face, and construct validation of the models. Results: Group S completed the procedures faster and achieved higher skill scores than Group T in both models. Group T, however, performed better with VRRS compared to 3D-AUSM. The most challenging steps for both groups were "exposing the intrarenal collecting system" and "relocating the stone". Both groups rated the models highly for content and face validation, though experienced surgeons gave lower overall satisfaction scores to VRRS compared to 3D-AUSM. Conclusion: 3D-printed models and VR simulators are safe, cost-effective tools for developing essential surgical skills. While 3D-AUSM provides realistic anatomical feedback, VRRS offers unlimited practice opportunities. Both models are valuable in surgical education, promoting standardized, effective training.

Indexed as

Models, AnatomicPrinting, Three-DimensionalSimulation TrainingUrinary TractUrologyVirtual RealityCadaverClinical CompetenceHumansMale3D printingRIRSsimulationsurgical trainingvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID40686710
PMCPMC12270318

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.