Which is more effective? Porcine tendon or 3D- printed flexor tendon? A study of model realism and educational utility in a flexor tendon repair workshop

Abstract

IntroductionAnimal models in orthopaedic surgical training have raised concerns about ethics and availability, prompting the search for non-animal alternatives. The 3D-printed silicone tendon model has emerged as a potential alternative due to its hygiene and reusability. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the two models for flexor tendon repair training. Materials and methodsA survey involved 25 postgraduate trainees with no prior experience in flexor tendon repair. Porcine tendon models and 3D-printed models were used, with participants evaluating accuracy, understanding of pulley systems, joint flexion, tissue feel, and model realism. Repairs were evaluated by experienced surgeons, and participants completed a survey. ResultsBoth models demonstrated satisfactory accuracy and realistic joint flexion. The porcine model scored higher in anatomical accuracy, while the 3D-printed model excelled in understanding pulley systems. The porcine model provided realistic tissue feel, while the 3D-printed model facilitated anatomy teaching. No significant difference was found in educational utility. The 3D-model was perceived as hygienic and odourless, whereas the porcine model offered better tendon handling. The 3D-model improved visualization of suture placement. Both models were equally accepted and recommended for training. ConclusionThe 3D-printed silicone tendon model is a cost-effective and reproducible alternative to porcine models in flexor tendon repair training. Although the 3D-printed model has limitations in mimicking human tendons, it was equally effective in teaching suturing techniques and improving repair skills. Combining the porcine model and 3D-printed model provides a comprehensive approach to flexor tendon repair training, addressing the limitations of each model and enhancing the educational experience.