Randomized controlled trial investigates 3D-printed models' effects on surgical performance in novice ORL residents, indicating limited benefits of specific designs.
To investigate if training with case-specific 3D-printed temporal bone (TB) models improves trainees’ mastoidectomy performance in cadaveric dissection compared with training on a standard, generic-anatomy 3D-printed TB model. In this randomized controlled trial, 22 novice ORL residents performed a cadaveric mastoidectomy with posterior tympanotomy after training two procedures either on 3D-printed TB models of their specific cadaveric bone (CM, n = 11), or on 3D-printed TB with generic anatomy (GM, n = 11). Blinded experts assessed final-product performance using a modified Welling Scale. Secondary outcomes included correlation between performance on 3D-printed models and cadavers, questionnaires on model quality, and usefulness for planning. On their first 3D-printed model, the CM group performed better than the GM group (13.1 vs. 10.9 points; p < 0.01). In their second 3D-printed procedure, scores were similar (15.8 vs. 15.7; p = 0.9) as both groups improved significantly from the first to the second procedure (p < 0.001). In subsequent cadaver dissection, the CM group scored lower than the GM group (13.2 vs. 14.4; p < 0.001). Correlation between performance on 3D-printed models and cadavers was not significant in the CM group (r = 0.45; p = 0.16) but very strong in the GM group (r = 0.77; p < 0.01). Questionnaire responses indicated high perceived realism and educational value in both groups. Training with case-specific 3D-printed TB models did not benefit or correlate with cadaveric mastoidectomy performance in novice residents. This supports the use of generic-anatomy, educational 3D-printed TB models in the early training stages and highlights the importance of aligning simulation fidelity with learner experience. Not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Omari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: