Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32043006›Full record

ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2019

3D printed anatomical (bio)models in spine surgery: clinical benefits and value to health care providers.

William C H Parr, Joshua L Burnard, Peter John Wilson, Ralph J Mobbs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Multimodality Imaging for 3D Printing and Surgical Rehearsal in Complex Spine Surgery.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 3D printing in spine care: A review of current applications.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

William C H ParrSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
Joshua L BurnardSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
Peter John WilsonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Prince of Wales Private, Sydney, Australia.
Ralph J MobbsSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The applications of three-dimensional printing (3DP) for clinical purposes have grown rapidly over the past decade. Recent advances include the fabrication of patient specific instrumentation, such as drill and cutting guides, patient specific/custom long term implants and 3DP of cellular scaffolds. Spine surgery in particular has seen enthusiastic early adoption of these applications. 3DP as a manufacturing method can be used to mass produce objects of the same design, but can also be used as a cost-effective method for manufacturing unique one-off objects, such as patient specific models and devices. Perhaps the first, and currently most widespread, application of 3DP for producing patient specific devices is the production of patient specific anatomical models, often termed biomodels. The present manuscript focuses on the current state of the art in anatomical (bio)models as used in spinal clinical practice. The biomodels shown and discussed include: translucent and coloured models to aid in identification of extent and margins of pathologies such as bone tumours; dynamic models for implant trial implantation and pre-operative sizing; models that can be disassembled to simulate surgical resection of diseased tissue and subsequent reconstruction. Biomodels can reduce risk to the patient by decreasing surgery time, reducing the probability of the surgical team encountering unexpected anatomy or relative positioning of structures and/or devices, and better pre-operative planning of the surgical workflow including ordered preparation of the necessary instrumentation for multi-step and revision procedures. Conversely, risks can be increased if biomodels are not accurate representations of the anatomy, which can occur if MRI/CT scan data is simply converted into 3DP format without interpretation of what the scan represents in terms of patient anatomy. A review and analysis of the cost-benefits of biomodels shows that biomodels can potentially reduce cost to health care providers if operating room time is reduced by 14 minutes or more.

Indexed as

3D printing (3DP)biomodelcomputational anatomycustompatient specific

Identifiers

PMID32043006
PMCPMC6989927

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.