ArticleEFORT open reviews2018
3D printing and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of 3D printing and case-based learning in clinical practice for the treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Three dimensional printing in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current evidence and future directions.International orthopaedics · 2026Review
- The role of musculoskeletal radiologists in emergency and trauma settings: current and emerging imaging modalities.BJR open · 2025Review
- Does patient-specific instrument or robot improve imaging and functional outcomes in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A bayesian analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Safety and effectiveness of the three-dimensional-printed guide plate-assisted rotation axis positioning of a hinged external fixator for the elbow.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Advances in the Application of Three-dimensional Printing for the Clinical Treatment of Osteoarticular Defects.Current medical science · 2022Review
- Bi-unicondylar arthroplasty : a biomechanics and clinical outcomes study.Bone & joint research · 2021Article
- Multi-color and Multi-Material 3D Printing of Knee Joint models.3D printing in medicine · 2021Article
- Prediction of the Size of the Fragment in Comminuted Coronoid Fracture Using the Contralateral Side: An Analysis of Similarity of Bilateral Ulnar Coronoid Morphology.Orthopaedic surgery · 2020Article
- Patient-specific instrumentation does not improve tibial component coronal alignment for medial UKA compared to conventional instrumentation.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In suitable patients, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers a number of advantages compared with total knee arthroplasty. However, the procedure is technically demanding, with a small tolerance for error. Assistive technology has the potential to improve the accuracy of implant positioning.This review paper describes the concept of detailed UKA planning in 3D, and the 3D printing technology that enables a plan to be delivered intraoperatively using patient-specific instrumentation (PSI).The varying guide designs that enable accurate registration are discussed and described. The system accuracy is reported.Future studies need to ascertain whether accuracy for low-volume surgeons can be delivered in the operating theatre using PSI, and reflected in improved patient reported outcome measures, and lower revision rates. Cite this article:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.