OBJECTIVE: To determine whether structured precadaveric simulation training using a 3D-printed temporal bone model improves mastoidectomy performance during cadaveric dissection among novice otolaryngology residents. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Temporal bone laboratory of a tertiary academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty otolaryngology residents without prior mastoidectomy experience. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized into 2 groups. The intervention group completed a 2-hour structured simulation session using a 3D-printed temporal bone model (Auris-Otobone) before cadaveric dissection, whereas the control group received standard theoretical instruction. All residents subsequently performed a simple cadaveric mastoidectomy under standardized laboratory conditions without instructor assistance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Technical performance was assessed using the 25-item Modified Welling Scale by 5 blinded expert otologists. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Group differences were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups except for sex distribution. The intervention group achieved significantly higher global Modified Welling Scale scores than the control group (16.44±2.62 vs. 12.28±2.63), corresponding to a mean difference of 4.16 points (95% CI: 2.68-5.64; P<0.001). Variance analysis showed that most score variability was attributable to differences between residents rather than evaluators, and the adjusted ICC indicated moderate inter-rater agreement (∼0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Structured precadaveric simulation training using a 3D-printed temporal bone model was associated with improved mastoidectomy performance among novice otolaryngology residents. These findings suggest that 3D-printed temporal bone models may represent a useful adjunct within otologic simulation curricula, particularly for early technical skill acquisition before cadaveric dissection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riart et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: