Cadaveric Dissection vs Homemade Model: What is the Best Way to Teach Endoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair?
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 21, 2026

Utilizing a 3D Printed Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication Model to Shorten a Resident's Learning Curve
Published on: August 15, 2025
Yazan AlJamal1, EeeLN Buckarma1, Raaj Ruparel1
1Division of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Background:
Endoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP-IHR) requires practice and training to perform well. We developed a simple, low-cost, inanimate model to teach surgical residents inguinal anatomy and the technique of mesh insertion for a safe, endoscopic TEP-IHR. The objective of this study was to compare our model vs cadaveric dissection for teaching anatomy and mesh insertion.
Methods:
A total of 14 general surgery residents participated in an institutional review board approved, prospective, and randomized study. Participants received a timed, web-based, interactive pretest assessing relevant anatomy and operative-based techniques. They then performed endoscopic TEP-IHRs on either a cadaver or our low-cost model. Participants then received a timed, web-based interactive posttest consisting of the same questions. Participants were surveyed anonymously regarding the degree to which either the model or the cadaver was educationally effective.
Results:
Both groups of trainees (cadaver = 7, low-cost model = 7) scored higher on the posttest (p<0.05) with similar improvement (cadaver group: pretest = 78% correct, posttest = 87%; low-cost model group: 77% vs 86%). Survey results revealed the trainees preferred for both initial learning and understanding of mesh placement using low-cost models (5 out of 5, 4.8/5, respectively) over cadavers (4.0/5, 3.8/5, respectively; p<0.05). Trainees preferred the cadaver (4.7) over the low-cost model (3.9, p<0.05) in overall experience. No differences were found in the trainees' preference between the cadaver (4.5) and low-cost model (4.7) in the overall educational value.
Conclusion:
While the overall educational experience of 14 learners favored a cadaver experience to learn TEP-IHR, initial anatomical learning and placing the mesh was better with an inanimate model. Given the educational value of the 2 methods was equivalent, the $1500 cost for cadavers make the inexpensive and repeatable inanimate model an attractive early resource for learning TEP-IHR.

