Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
A study comparing virtual reality simulation, 3D printed organ models and a combination of both for laparoscopy surgery skills acquisition.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveVirtual reality (VR) simulators and 3D printed organ models are effective for laparoscopic skill acquisition independently. This study aimed to evaluate the synergistic efficacy of a hybrid training program that combines both modalities.
methodsTwenty-seven surgical novices, were randomized into three equal cohorts (VR, 3D, Hybrid). The hybrid cohort underwent a two-phase curriculum over 10 weeks: VR simulation for weeks 1-5, followed by the 3D model for weeks 6-10. The final task was a laparoscopic colon end-to-end anastomosis on a porcine ex vivo model, which was video-recorded for blinded OSATS assessment. Primary outcomes included OSATS scores and procedure times. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, and post hoc tests. Learning curves were assessed using CUSUM analysis, and survey data were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U tests.
resultsOSATS scores: Hybrid vs. 3D vs. VR (30.67 ± 3.464 vs. 29.00 ± 3.640 vs. 24.78 ± 2.99, P < 0.01). Procedure times were similar across groups: VR (120.33 ± 51.42 min), 3D (119.56 ± 34.04 min), Hybrid (135 ± 25.08 min). Fluid leak test: VR group showed significantly higher fluid leakage and fluid leakage flow rate than hybrid and 3D (p < 0.05). Learning curve: Hybrid had shorter curve. Instrument handling: 3D and Hybrid outperformed VR (p < 0.05). Post-training surveys: 3D and Hybrid groups reported improvements in interest in surgery and confidence in laparoscopic skills (p < 0.05). 3D cohort rated highest in confidence building, realism, and overall effectiveness (p < 0.01).
conclusionA hybrid curriculum enhances training outcomes compared to a VR-only curriculum, with 3D models showing particular strengths in optimizing skill acquisition. Integrating 3D printed models into a hybrid curriculum may shorten the learning curve and better prepare trainees for complex surgical tasks, expanding access to effective laparoscopic training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41094271What 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.