ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and evaluation of a low-cost 3D-printed simulator for ossicular prosthesis placement.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experienced otologists achieve better functional outcomes and fewer complications post-surgery. Otology requires high surgical precision, with risks including total and permanent hearing loss in the operated ear. Although otologic surgical simulators exist, most are sophisticated and expensive. The main objective of this study was to develop and assess a reproducible, affordable, and effective middle ear surgical simulator, defined by its ability to improve residents' anatomical understanding, confidence, and basic technical skills in prosthesis placement. A simulator model was 3D-printed to allow junior ENT residents to practice ossicular prosthesis placement outside the operating room. Residents and senior surgeons evaluated the model using a Likert scale through satisfaction questionnaires. An anatomical model of the middle ear at a 1:6 scale, previously validated by experts, was accessible to residents beforehand. A simulator can be printed at very low-cost, under €20. Resident satisfaction with the anatomical model was high, rated 4.1/5. Regarding the surgical model, experts gave a good rating of 3.6/5, while residents rated their satisfaction at 4/5. This study enabled the creation of a satisfactory, reproducible, and low-cost surgical simulator, although its limitations-including single-material printing and the absence of soft tissues-restrict its use mainly to early training.
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.