ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Orthopedic Trainees' Perception of the Educational Utility of Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Anatomical Models: A Questionnaire-Based Observational Study.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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.
- Integrating problem-based learning with virtual simulation in trauma orthopedic education: effects on learning outcomes and student satisfaction.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Evaluating the educational impact of tomography-based high-resolution 3D-printed distal radius fracture models.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional orthopedic teaching methods have inherent limitations in conveying complex three-dimensional anatomical relationships essential for surgical planning and execution. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offers a potential solution to these educational challenges, but systematic evaluation of its specific educational impact in orthopedic residency training remains limited. Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the educational efficacy of in-house 3D-printed patient-specific anatomical models in orthopedic training through assessment of three core domains: anatomical comprehension, surgical planning proficiency, and clinical teaching utility. Methods: In this analytical observational study, paper-based questionnaires were distributed to 145 orthopedic residents at Hubei University of Medicine who participated in clinical teaching sessions using 3D-printed anatomical models between January 2025 and March 2025. Participants rated their experiences on a 10-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: The response rate was 81.4% (n=118). A majority (85.6%) of residents reported enhanced understanding of complex anatomical structures. First-year residents demonstrated higher satisfaction (mean score 7.9) compared to more advanced trainees (mean scores 7.3 and 6.9). Small group settings (4-6 participants) were preferred by 76.3% of respondents. Physical manipulation of models received the highest educational value rating (mean score 8.1). Primary limitations included production time (45.8%), material durability (38.6%), and limited model varieties (35.6%). Nearly half (43.2%) of residents requested more frequent practice sessions. Conclusion: 3D-printed anatomical models significantly enhance orthopedic resident education, particularly for complex structures and junior trainees. Small-group, instructor-guided implementation maximizes educational benefits. When strategically integrated into existing curricula, in-house production enables widespread access across training levels with minimal resource constraints.
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.