ArticleScientific reports2020
Modelling and manufacturing of 3D-printed, patient-specific, and anthropomorphic gastric phantoms: a pilot study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of individualized 3D-printed models of pancreatic cancer to improve surgeons' anatomic understanding and surgical planning.European radiology · 2023Article
- Design and Mechanical Characterization Using Digital Image Correlation of Soft Tissue-Mimicking Polymers.Polymers · 2022Article
- Rehearsal simulation to determine the size of device for left atrial appendage occlusion using patient-specific 3D-printed phantoms.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A novel human peristalsis-inspired 3D-printed gastroduodenal simulator to evaluate intragastric/duodenal metabolic devices: a proof-of-concept study.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Validity of a Soft and Flexible 3D-Printed Nissen Fundoplication Model in Surgical Training.International journal of bioprinting · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interventional devices including intragastric balloons are widely used to treat obesity. This study aims to develop 3D-printed, patient-specific, and anthropomorphic gastric phantoms with mechanical properties similar to those of human stomach. Using computed tomography gastrography (CTG) images of three patients, gastric phantoms were modelled through shape registration to align the stomach shapes of three different phases. Shape accuracies of the original gastric models versus the 3D-printed phantoms were compared using landmark distances. The mechanical properties (elongation and tensile strength), number of silicone coatings (0, 2, and 8 times), and specimen hardness (50, 60, and 70 Shore A) of three materials (Agilus, Elastic, and Flexa) were evaluated. Registration accuracy was significantly lower between the arterial and portal phases (3.16 ± 0.80 mm) than that between the portal and delayed phases (8.92 ± 0.96 mm). The mean shape accuracy difference was less than 10 mm. The mean elongations and tensile strengths of the Agilus, Elastic, and Flexa were 264%, 145%, and 146% and 1.14, 1.59, and 2.15 MPa, respectively, and their mechanical properties differed significantly (all p < 0.05). Elongation and tensile strength assessments, CTG image registration and 3D printing resulted in highly realistic and patient-specific gastric phantoms with reasonable shape accuracies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.