Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42663803›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2026

Lecture, model, or both? Optimizing fracture education with 3D printing: a longitudinal interventional study.

Christopher Cramer, André Strahl, Karl-Heinz Frosch, Miriam Rüsseler, Tobias Dust

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christopher CramerDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. c.cramer@uke.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8880-5345
André StrahlDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Karl-Heinz FroschDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Miriam RüsselerInstitute for Medical Education and Clinical Simulation, Faculty of Medicine, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Tobias DustDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional anatomical training methods in surgery, like cadaver dissection and didactic lectures, face limitations in availability, cost, and translating 2D to 3D understanding. Three-dimensional (3D) printing offers an innovative solution for medical education, particularly in orthopedics and trauma surgery, where complex bone structures are crucial. 3D-printed models show promise for improving anatomical learning, spatial understanding, and student satisfaction.

methodsThis longitudinal interventional study investigated the impact of different teaching methods on medical students' knowledge acquisition and perceptions regarding fibula fracture management. Sixty-seven 3rd or 4th-year students, randomized into three groups, participated. Group 1 received a 20-minute lecture, Group 2 engaged in model-based learning using a 3D-printed fibula model, and Group 3 received a combination of lecture and model-based learning. Knowledge was assessed via a written quiz, and subjective feedback and personal motivation were measured. Assessments occurred immediately before (t0), immediately after (t1), and four weeks after (t2) the teaching unit.

resultsAt baseline (t0), there were no significant group differences in processing time. Immediately post-training (t1), the lecture group showed the shortest processing time. The lecture + practice group achieved the highest mean knowledge score at t1, significantly outperforming both practice and lecture groups (8.25 vs. 5.09 vs. 6.82, p < 0.01). At the four-week follow-up (t2), significant group differences persisted, with lecture + practice maintaining a significantly higher mean score than practice (5.75 vs. 3.46, p < 0.05). Overall, knowledge significantly improved from t0 to t1 and t0 to t2, though a decrease was noted between t1 and t2. Subjective feedback consistently indicated that practical and combined methods were more suitable for understanding, enhanced security, and promoted interest.

conclusions3D models improve anatomical learning and student satisfaction. The combined lecture + model approach demonstrated superior immediate and sustained knowledge acquisition for complex topics like fracture management. This aligns with pedagogical theories such as constructivism and cognitive load theory, suggesting that integrating theoretical context with physical models optimizes learning outcomes. This study underscores the importance of rigorous comparative designs for effectively integrating innovative tools like 3D printing into medical education. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

3D printingFracture educationMedical educationTeaching methodsTrauma surgery

Identifiers

PMID42663803
PMCPMC13523473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.