Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31797140›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2020

3D-printed spine surgery implants: a systematic review of the efficacy and clinical safety profile of patient-specific and off-the-shelf devices.

Joshua L Burnard, William C H Parr, Wen Jie Choy, William R Walsh, Ralph J Mobbs

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 60 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Bioprinting for craniofacial reconstruction: A review of advancements, clinical use, and challenges.Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joshua L BurnardFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia. Joshua.burnard@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0212-5443
William C H ParrFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
Wen Jie ChoyFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
William R WalshFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
Ralph J MobbsFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6542-6836
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThree-dimensional printing (3DP), or additive manufacturing, is an emergent fabrication technology for surgical devices. As a production method, 3DP enables physical realisation of surgical implants from geometrically complex digital-models in computer-aided design. Spine surgery has been an innovative adopter of 3DP technology for both patient-specific (PS) and market-available 'Off-The-Shelf' (OTS) implants. The present study assessed clinical evidence for efficacy and safety of both PS and OTS 3DP spinal implants through review of the published literature. The aim was to evaluate the clinical utility of 3DP devices for spinal surgery.

methodsA systematic literature review of peer-reviewed papers featured on online medical databases evidencing the application of 3DP (PS and OTS) surgical spine implants was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

resultsTwenty-two peer-reviewed articles and one book-chapter were eligible for systematic review. The published literature was limited to case reports and case series, with a predominant focus on PS designs fabricated from titanium alloys for surgical reconstruction in cases where neoplasia, infection, trauma or degenerative processes of the spine have precipitated significant anatomical complexity.

conclusionPS and 3DP OTS surgical implants have demonstrated considerable utility for the surgical management of complex spine pathology. The reviewed literature indicated that 3DP spinal implants have also been used safely, with positive surgeon- and patient-reported outcomes. However, these conclusions are tentative as the follow-up periods are still relatively short and the number of high-powered studies was limited. Single case and small case series reporting would benefit greatly from more standardised reporting of clinical, radiographic and biomechanical outcomes. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

Plastic Surgery ProceduresProstheses and ImplantsComputer-Aided DesignHumansPrinting, Three-DimensionalTitaniumTitanium3D-printingAdditive manufacturingCustom madeImplantPatient specificSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID31797140
OpenAlexW2993954109

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.