ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Development and preliminary validation of a hybrid three-dimension printed model for glaucoma drainage device surgery training: a prospective simulation-based study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to develop a three-dimensional (3D) printed glaucoma drainage device (GDD) surgery model and evaluate its realism and procedural performance compared with a commercially available GDD.
methodsThis prospective, simulation-based pilot feasibility study assessed preliminary face and content validity evidence for a 3D-printed GDD model. Fourteen glaucoma specialists (eight fellows and six consultants) were recruited using a convenience sample from a single tertiary eye hospital. Participants performed two simulated GDD surgeries on ovine eyes in a surgical training wet lab, first using the 3D-printed model and then using a commercially available Baerveldt glaucoma implant (BGI). Procedure time was measured using a stopwatch for comparative analysis, and participants evaluated technical realism, visual realism, and overall utility relative to the BGI on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all similar/not useful at all to 5 = extremely similar/extremely useful). The study was non-randomized, and participant blinding was not feasible because of visible differences between the devices.
resultsTotal procedure duration was longer for the 3D-printed model than for the BGI (median interquartile range [IQR], 530.5 [302.5] vs. 342 [132.5] s; p < 0.001), with significantly longer times for plate insertion (p = 0.039), tube insertion (p = 0.001), and tube fixation (p = 0.025), except for plate fixation (p = 0.078). Technical realism was rated highest for plate and tube fixation, with median [IQR] scores of 4.00 [1] and 4.00 [0], respectively, and overall model utility was rated 4.00 [1]. When comparing consultants and glaucoma fellows, only BGI plate fixation time differed significantly (112.5 [101] vs. 180 [94] s; p = 0.023).
conclusionsAlthough procedure times were longer with the 3D-printed model than with the commercial implant, the model demonstrated acceptable moderate-to-high ratings for realism and high overall utility, supporting its potential role as a feasible simulation-based training tool for GDD surgery.
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.