ArticleOTO open
An Open-Source, Three-Dimensionally Printed, Motorized ("Breathing") Nasotracheoscopy Simulator.
Article in OTO open. 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
Objective: To evaluate the face and content validity of a novel, 3D-printed nasotracheoscopy simulator with a motorized, moving larynx using expert feedback from board-certified otolaryngologists. Study Design: Device development and validation study. Setting: An academic institution. Methods: An anatomically accurate airway model was created from a de-identified normal patient CT scan using open-source segmentation software. Negative impressions of the turbinates and nasopharynx were 3D printed in PLA and cast in silicone for realistic soft tissue. A custom-coded Arduino-controlled servo motor was integrated to simulate laryngeal motion. Ten board-certified otolaryngologists performed flexible nasotracheoscopy on the model and completed a survey assessing face validity, content validity, and general impressions using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics summarized responses. Results: The simulator received high scores for face validity (mean 4.6, SD 0.67), content validity (mean 4.8, SD 0.40), and general impressions (mean 4.83, SD 0.42). All participants agreed that the model accurately represented anatomical landmarks and held educational value. Feedback emphasized its utility for telescopic navigation and anatomical recognition training. Conclusions: This 3D-printed simulator demonstrated strong validity and realism. Its anatomical accuracy, dynamic features, and reproducibility support its use as a training adjunct in procedural training. Future studies will assess its effect on learner performance.
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.