Article3D printing in medicine2026
Comparing conventional versus 3D printed simulators for simulation training of emergency percutaneous cricothyrotomy with two different kits: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEffective procedural training is crucial for emergency interventions such as percutaneous cricothyrotomy (PC). This study evaluated simulation-based training of PC by comparing two simulators, a commercially available conventional simulator (CSIM) and an innovative 3D-printed simulator (3DSIM), and assessed their impact on procedural performance and subjective safety perceptions using two different PC kits: Quicktrach II (direct puncture method) and Surgicric III (Seldinger technique).
methodsForty-four participants underwent standardized theoretical training and were randomized into two groups: Group A initially trained with CSIM and Group B with 3DSIM. In both groups, procedural performance was evaluated immediately after each simulation session on porcine trachea models by two blinded assessors. Outcomes included procedural time, standardized performance scores, and subjective safety ratings. Participant evaluations of educational benefit and simulator realism were also recorded. Training effectiveness was reassessed in a second session using a crossover design, allowing direct comparison of the two simulators and kits.
resultsProcedural performance improved significantly after repeated training, with no significant differences between CSIM and 3DSIM regarding procedural times (p = 0.98) or accuracy scores (p = 0.99). Both PC kits showed significantly reduced procedural times (Quicktrach II: 42 ± 46 to 19 ± 7 s, p < 0.01; Surgicric III: 119 ± 73 to 91 ± 51 s, p = 0.03). Accuracy improved significantly only for Surgicric III (95 ± 10% to 98 ± 4%, p = 0.04). Participants’ perceived safety improved similarly for both simulators (44 ± 20% to 94 ± 9%), without differences in educational benefit or realism ratings.
conclusionConventional and 3D-printed simulators were equally effective in enhancing procedural performance and subjective safety perceptions in PC training. Procedural time improvements differed by kit complexity, suggesting Quicktrach II offers quicker initial mastery, whereas Surgicric III may require additional practice due to its greater complexity. These results support flexible simulator choice based on local factors like cost and availability, underscoring the potential of 3D-printed simulators for procedural training programs. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.