Introduction

We have previously documented the feasibility of the local three-dimensionally (3D) printed manufacture and efficacy of a low cost, portable laparoscopic trainer (UCi Trainer) that utilizes an electronic tablet for video and optics. In the current study, we evaluate the feasibility of remote 3D manufacture of the UCi Trainer with commercially available “home” printers. We also compared the performance of the UCi Trainer and a standard pelvic trainer (SPT) (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) (Richard Wolf, Vernon Hills, Illinois, USA).

Methods

We created computer-aided designs for nine components to be assembled into a laparoscopic training device. These files were provided to four institutions to 3D print using an inexpensive “home” 3D printer (Flashforge Creator 3D printer), assemble, and use the trainer. All institutions were provided standardized instructions for printing and assembly of the components, and were asked to rate the 3D printing and assembly process. Participants were assigned to perform timed peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying tasks with the UCi Trainer and SPT, as well as rate each trainer on image quality, resolution, brightness, comfort, and overall performance on a 5-point Likert scale. A local instructor evaluated trainee performance on the peg transfer and knot tying tasks.

Results

The printer cost was $876.48, and the total materials cost was $26.50 for each UCi Trainer manufactured. Initial set up of the 3D printer was challenging to all participants but with adjustments, successful printing and assembly of the components was accomplished. All participants recommended 3D printing as a method for disseminating surgical education tools. A total of 16 subjects participated in the trainer comparison assessment. There was no significant difference between peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying task scores completed on the UT when compared with the SPT (p > 0.05). Participants rated the SPT significantly higher compared to the UCi Trainer (p<0.05): image quality (3.19 vs 4.25), resolution (3.56 vs 4.31), brightness (3.19 vs 4.38), delay (3.25 vs 4.38), overall comfort (3.13 vs 3.88), and overall performance (3.19 vs 4.06). In the questionnaire participants agreed that the UCi Trainer is similar to laparoscopy (44%), comfortable to use (56%), good practice format (88%), would purchase the UCi Trainer (69%), and would recommend the UCi Trainer for residents (88%).

Conclusions

The UCi Trainer can be remotely manufactured in a cost-effective manner. It appears to be a valuable tool for facilitating resident training in laparoscopy.

Funding

none