Development, manufacture and initial assessment of validity of a 3-dimensional-printed bowel anastomosis simulation training model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is critical that junior residents be given opportunities to practise bowel anastomosis before performing the procedure in patients. Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an affordable way to provide realistic, reusable intestinal simulators. The aim of this study was to test the face and content validity of a 3D-printed simulator for bowel anastomosis. METHODS: The bowel anastomosis simulator was designed and assembled with the use of desktop 3D printers and silicone solutions. The production cost ranges from $2.67 to $131, depending on which aspects of the model one prefers to include. We incorporated input from a general surgeon regarding design modifications to improve the realism of the model. Nine experts in general surgery (6 staff surgeons and 3 senior residents) were asked to perform an anastomosis with the model and then complete 2 surveys regarding face and content validity. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). RESULTS: The overall average score for product quality was 3.58, indicating good face validity. The average score for realism (e.g., flexibility and texture of the model) was 3.77. The simulator was rated as being useful for training, with an overall average score of 3.98. In general, the participants agreed that the simulator would be a valuable addition to current simulation-based medical education (average score 4.11). They commented that the model would be improved by adding extra layers to simulate mucosa. CONCLUSION: Experts found the 3D-printed bowel anastomosis simulator to be an appropriate tool for the education of surgical residents, based on the model's texture, appearance and ability to undergo an anastomosis. This model provides an affordable way for surgical residents to learn bowel anastomosis. Future research will focus on proving educational efficacy, effectiveness and transfer that can be adapted for laparoscopic anastomosis training, hand-sewing and stapling procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".