ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020
Traditional three-dimensional printing technology versus three-dimensional printing mirror model technology in the treatment of isolated acetabular fractures: a retrospective analysis.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Can Technology Improve Acetabular and Pelvic Fractures Management in the Operating Room? A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Developing a core outcome set for acetabular fractures: a systematic review (part I).Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Emerging Technologies for Assisted Fracture Reduction: A Systematic Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Application of three-dimensional printing technology in peripheral hip diseases.Bioengineered · 2021Review
- Does 3D-Assisted Acetabular Fracture Surgery Improve Surgical Outcome and Physical Functioning?-A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Traditional versus mirror three-dimensional printing technology for isolated acetabular fractures: a retrospective study with a median follow-up of 25 months.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of traditional three-dimensional (3D) printing technology and 3D printing mirror model technology in the treatment of isolated acetabular fractures.
methodsProspectively maintained databases were reviewed to retrospectively compare patients with an isolated acetabular fracture who were treated with traditional 3D printing technology (Group T) or 3D printing mirror model technology (Group M) from 2011 to 2017. In total, 146 advanced-age patients (146 hips) with an isolated acetabular fracture (Group T, n = 72; Group M, n = 74) were assessed for a mean follow-up period of 29 months (range, 24-34 months). The primary endpoint was the postoperative Harris hip score (HHS). The secondary endpoints were the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy screening time, fracture reduction quality, and incidence of postoperative complications at the final follow-up.
resultsThe HHS, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy screening time, and incidence of postoperative complications were significantly different between the groups, with Group M showing superior clinical outcomes.
conclusionIn patients with an isolated acetabular fracture, 3D printing mirror model technology might lead to more accurate and efficient treatment than traditional 3D printing technology.
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.