Trial reportThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2026
Are 3D-Printed Anatomic Haptic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Spine Models Better Resident Training Tools When Compared to Conventional Training Modalities: A Randomized Controlled Study.
Trial report in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 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
Background: Spinal deformity surgery requires a thorough understanding of complex three-dimensional pathoanatomy. Opportunities to directly interact with 3-dimensional (3D) pathoanatomy and surgical practice techniques are limited. 3D printers are able to create models that accurately mimic deformed adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). We hypothesize that a 3D-printed anatomic haptic AIS spine model will improve resident training by increasing accuracy of screw placement compared to conventional training tools. Methods: Using a historical clinical computed tomography of a patient with 50-degree Lenke 1 AIS, a three-dimensional model from T1-L5 was created. Thirty-one orthopaedic trainees from two separate training programs were recruited and randomized into three groups. Cadaver (CG) had 10 residents, Sawbones (SG) had nine and 3D model (3G) had 12 in the initial training cohort where they were taught how to insert pedicle screws in their respective models. A total of 25/31 residents completed the pedicle screw insertion test (CG=6, SG=7, 3G=12) 2-4 weeks post initial training. Breaches were recorded at each session and compared to assess each models' applicability in teaching and improving surgical technique. Trainees were also queried regarding their satisfaction (1-5) with the training model. Results: The average number of breaches >2mm are shown in Table 2. Compared to the other two methods of teaching, Sawbones had the highest number of pedicle breaches. Trainees in the SG also had significantly improved accuracy at the post-test session. There were no significant differences in the other two groups. When queried, 84% of residents chose to learn on a 3D model compared to sawbones and cadavers. Overall, the residents rated 4.7 for recommending the use of the 3D model in their training program. Conclusion: A 3D printed anatomic haptic AIS spine model can serve as a resident training tool to help improve accuracy of pedicle screw placement in of AIS when compared to sawbones. Level of Evidence: I.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42488297PMC13389474What 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.