ArticleCureus2026
Results of an Orthopedic Veterans Affairs Medical Center Cadaveric Simulation Lab.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the quality, validity, and effectiveness of a novel orthopedic surgery cadaveric simulation program, the first published analysis of such a training model within a government-based healthcare system. Methodology Survey data collected immediately before, immediately following, and three months after cadaver labs assessed participant comfort with regional anatomy and procedure skills practiced during the simulations. The study was conducted at the United States Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, a large VA hospital and teaching site for multiple health professions trainees. A total of 32 responses (29 unique individuals) were included. In total, 23 responses came from PGY1 orthopedic surgery trainees; additional participants included medical students, occupational therapy trainees, prosthetics trainees, and upper-level orthopedic trainees, most affiliated with the University of Minnesota. Results A total of 30 (94%) participants completed the immediate post-lab survey, and 14 (44%) completed the three-month follow-up. Significant increases in confidence were observed across all core survey items immediately after lab participation, with the largest gains in understanding surgical procedures and anticipating instrumentation needs. Confidence in anatomy comprehension and radiographic interpretation remained significantly improved at three months, while confidence in the use of technical instruments declined, possibly due to limited post-lab opportunities for continued practice. All items assessing the perceived educational value of the labs received high ratings (mean score ≥4.0 out of 5). Conclusions This study demonstrates the effectiveness of an orthopedic cadaveric simulation program in improving trainee confidence in anatomy, radiograph interpretation, and surgical skills. These findings support integrating similar cadaver simulation programs at other teaching centers. More frequent simulations and additional practice with surgical instruments may further enhance their educational impact.
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.