Trial reportSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2026
Effectiveness of three-dimensional printed lumbar spine-model-based training for epidural anesthesia in novice anesthesiology residents.
Trial report in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpidural procedures have a steep learning curve and may raise patient-safety concerns during early anesthesiology training. We evaluated whether a low-cost, three-dimensional (3D) simulation model improves early procedural success and efficiency in novice trainees.
methodsIn this prospective randomized controlled study, 36 anesthesia residents were randomized into two groups. Group A received hands-on training on a 3D simulation model plus audiovisual teaching, whereas Group B received audiovisual teaching only. Performance was assessed at baseline (0 h), 3 h, and 6 h using procedural success, a checklist score, and a global rating scale; procedure time was recorded.
resultsBaseline success was comparable between groups. At 3 h and 6 h, Group A demonstrated a marked improvement, reaching a success rate of 94.4% at 6 h compared with 50.0% in Group B. Checklist scores did not differ at baseline (p = 0.888) but were significantly higher in Group A at 3 h and 6 h (both p < 0.001). Procedure time decreased significantly in Group A (from 149 ± 24 s to 107 ± 26 s, p < 0.001) versus a limited reduction in Group B (from 148 ± 26 s to 142 ± 22 s, p = 0.001). The model was inexpensive and feasible to produce (~ 6 h printing time; total cost ~$11.50/model).
conclusionLow-cost 3D model-assisted training improved short-term simulator-based epidural performance, checklist scores, GRS scores, and procedural efficiency among novice anesthesiology residents. These findings support the use of 3D printed models as an accessible hands-on adjunct to conventional audiovisual epidural anesthesia training. Further studies are needed to determine whether these improvements translate into long-term retention, clinical performance and patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42377555What 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.