Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41801347›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026

Effect of case-specific 3D-printed models on surgical performance in cadaveric dissection-a randomized controlled trial.

Adam Omari, Anders Nøhr, Elissa Suleiman, Per Cayé-Thomasen, Mads Sølvsten Sørensen, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. 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.

Adam OmariCopenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. adam.omari@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5360-0515
Anders NøhrCopenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Elissa SuleimanCopenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Per Cayé-ThomasenCopenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mads Sølvsten SørensenCopenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Andreas FrithioffCopenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Steven Arild Wuyts AndersenCopenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate if training with case-specific 3D-printed temporal bone (TB) models improves trainees’ mastoidectomy performance in cadaveric dissection compared with training on a standard, generic-anatomy 3D-printed TB model.

methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 22 novice ORL residents performed a cadaveric mastoidectomy with posterior tympanotomy after training two procedures either on 3D-printed TB models of their specific cadaveric bone (CM, n = 11), or on 3D-printed TB with generic anatomy (GM, n = 11). Blinded experts assessed final-product performance using a modified Welling Scale. Secondary outcomes included correlation between performance on 3D-printed models and cadavers, questionnaires on model quality, and usefulness for planning.

resultsOn their first 3D-printed model, the CM group performed better than the GM group (13.1 vs. 10.9 points; p < 0.01). In their second 3D-printed procedure, scores were similar (15.8 vs. 15.7; p = 0.9) as both groups improved significantly from the first to the second procedure (p < 0.001). In subsequent cadaver dissection, the CM group scored lower than the GM group (13.2 vs. 14.4; p < 0.001). Correlation between performance on 3D-printed models and cadavers was not significant in the CM group (r = 0.45; p = 0.16) but very strong in the GM group (r = 0.77; p < 0.01). Questionnaire responses indicated high perceived realism and educational value in both groups.

conclusionTraining with case-specific 3D-printed TB models did not benefit or correlate with cadaveric mastoidectomy performance in novice residents. This supports the use of generic-anatomy, educational 3D-printed TB models in the early training stages and highlights the importance of aligning simulation fidelity with learner experience.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

CadaverClinical CompetenceMastoidectomyOtolaryngologyPrinting, Three-DimensionalDissectionFemaleHumansInternship and ResidencyMaleModels, AnatomicTemporal Bone3D printingCase-specific rehearsalMastoidectomySimulation-based trainingSurgical trainingTemporal bone

Identifiers

PMID41801347
PMCPMC13249690

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.