Article3D printing in medicine2026
Evaluation of 3D-printed vs. digital models in simulation-based training for iliac endovascular interventions.
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
backgroundThis study assessed two different 3D-printed endovascular simulation models and a digital simulator for training of endovascular interventions.
methodsThirty-two vascular surgeons and radiologists completed interventions using two transparent 3D-printed models-a flexible model, printed with Stereolithography (SLA), and a stiff model using Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) technology -as well as a digital simulator. A standardized questionnaire assessed the models' perceived face and construct validity as well as their concurrent validity. Additionally, the impact of model material (flexible vs. stiff) on perceived fidelity and utility were evaluated.
resultsAll participants completed the three interventions successfully. There was an even distribution of sex (16 males and females) and experience among the participants. The flexible 3D-printed model demonstrated significantly higher face and construct validity scores compared to the stiff model and the digital simulator (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the digital and stiff models for face and construct validity (p = 1.0, p = 0.38). Regarding concurrent validity, there was a significant preference for the 3D-printed models (72% vs. 16%; p < 0.001). The flexible 3D-printed models were strongly favoured (82% vs. 9%; p < 0.001) due to higher scores regarding fidelity of the experienced resistance and tactile response (p < 0.001). Most participants (81%) expressed a desire for regular simulation training.
conclusionsTransparent 3D-printed models present a valuable, and potentially superior, alternative to established digital simulators. They achieve higher scores in face and construct validity as well as surpass the digital simulator in concurrent validity. Flexibility emerges as a key factor, significantly enhancing the fidelity and overall training experience of 3D-printed models.
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.