ArticleActa cirurgica brasileira2026
Development and preliminary evaluation of a camera-assisted endovascular simulator using a three-dimensional printing.
Article in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 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
purposeThis study described the development and preliminary evaluation of a simulator that combines a three-dimensional-printed vascular model with a camera-assisted system for training basic endovascular skills.
methodsA hollow mannequin torso housed a transparent, three-dimensional-printed aorta. Guidewire and catheter manipulation were visualized in real time using a manually controlled camera. Fifteen medical students (novices) and five vascular surgeons (experts) performed simulated tasks in two sessions. Experts also assessed realism and educational value.
resultsNovices demonstrated shorter completion times across all exercises in session 2, particularly in exercise 4, with mean time decreasing from 229.3 ± 134.8 to 83.5 ± 31.1 seconds, a mean difference of 145.8 seconds (p = 0.001). Experts showed no significant improvement in most tasks, although exercise 3 improved from 115.4 ± 29.7 to 91.6 ± 21.5 seconds, a mean difference of 23.8 seconds (p = 0.012). Performance differed between groups (construct validity). Surgeons provided favorable ratings for the realism and usefulness (face and content validity).
conclusionThis preliminary device appears feasible and may facilitate early skill acquisition in low-resource educational settings without radiation exposure.
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.