ArticleOchsner journal2026
Low-Cost 3D-Printed Temporal Bone Models for Surgical Simulation: A Pilot Study.
Article in Ochsner 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical simulation requires realistic models for proper surgical preparation. To address the scarcity, storage complexity, and cost of cadaver specimens, alternative approaches such as three-dimensional (3D)-printed models have been developed, but 3D-printed models can be expensive and require specialized equipment and expertise. We developed and tested 3D-printed temporal bone models made with accessible, affordable materials and evaluated their use as training replacements. Methods: Using computed tomography scans of 1 adult patient and 1 pediatric patient, we 3D-printed 4 adult and 4 pediatric temporal bone models with the following materials: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polylactic acid, high-impact polystyrene, and Formlabs white resin (Formlabs Inc). Eight otolaryngology residents with prior experience with temporal bone drilling participated in the study. Residents were randomized to either an adult or pediatric bone and blinded to the 3D-print material used. Immediately after drilling the 3D models, the participants completed an 8-item Likert scale questionnaire that evaluated the value, ease of use, safety, and similarity of the 3D-printed temporal bones compared to cadaver temporal bones. Results: Residents rated the models as similar to cadaver bones in terms of training value but rated the bony anatomy of the models as suboptimal, specifically the mastoid air cells and dust from drilling. Statistical analysis found no significant differences across materials or residency levels ( Conclusion: With improvements to the bony anatomy of our models and further optimization of the low-cost materials to improve haptic realism, 3D-printed temporal bones may provide comparable training alternatives to cadaver bones that are less costly per model and require no costly storage. Future studies should evaluate 3D-printed temporal bone models in larger within-subject cohorts and assess cost-effectiveness to determine their value relative to cadaver specimens.
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.