Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20467825›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2010

3D printing based on imaging data: review of medical applications.

F Rengier, A Mehndiratta, H von Tengg-Kobligk, C M Zechmann, R Unterhinninghofen, H-U Kauczor, F L Giesel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 424 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
424citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

424 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

364 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

F RengierDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg, Germany.
A Mehndiratta
H von Tengg-Kobligk
C M Zechmann
R Unterhinninghofen
H-U Kauczor
F L Giesel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGeneration of graspable three-dimensional objects applied for surgical planning, prosthetics and related applications using 3D printing or rapid prototyping is summarized and evaluated. MATERIALS AND

methodsGraspable 3D objects overcome the limitations of 3D visualizations which can only be displayed on flat screens. 3D objects can be produced based on CT or MRI volumetric medical images. Using dedicated post-processing algorithms, a spatial model can be extracted from image data sets and exported to machine-readable data. That spatial model data is utilized by special printers for generating the final rapid prototype model.

resultsPatient-clinician interaction, surgical training, medical research and education may require graspable 3D objects. The limitations of rapid prototyping include cost and complexity, as well as the need for specialized equipment and consumables such as photoresist resins.

conclusionsMedical application of rapid prototyping is feasible for specialized surgical planning and prosthetics applications and has significant potential for development of new medical applications.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided DesignPatient Care PlanningProsthesis DesignAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingModels, AnatomicSurgery, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.