Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32918149›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2021

Role of 3D printing in the management of complex acetabular fractures: a comparative study.

Sajid Ansari, Sitanshu Barik, Sanny Kumar Singh, Bhaskar Sarkar, Tarun Goyal, Roop Bhushan Kalia

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Visualization of complicated fractures by 3D-printed models for teaching and surgery: hands-on transitional fractures of the ankle.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Focus on acetabular fractures.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2021
    Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sajid AnsariDepartment of Orthopedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Sitanshu BarikDepartment of Orthopedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Sanny Kumar SinghDepartment of Orthopedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Bhaskar SarkarDepartment of Orthopedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Tarun GoyalDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhatinda, India.
Roop Bhushan KaliaDepartment of Orthopedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India. roopkalia2003@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3418-5942
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rishikesh · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study is to assess the role of 3D printing of actual size pelvis in the management and outcome of acetabular fractures.

methodsRetrospective study with inclusion of acetabular fractures which were divided into two groups (traditional and 3D printing) was done over a 1 year period. The indices for comparison of both groups in this study were (a) operative time (from skin incision to suture), (b) intraoperative blood loss (noted from the anaesthetist notes), (c) times of intraoperative fluoroscopy, (d) postoperative complications, (e) quality of fracture reduction (good =  < 2 mm displacement, fair =  > 2 mm displacement) and (f) Harris hip score at final follow-up.

results27 cases (traditional group = 15, 3D printing group = 12) meeting the study criteria were included in the study with a mean follow-up of 26.3 ± 11.2 months. There was a significant difference in the operative time, intraoperative blood loss and number of intraoperative fluoroscopy images. The mean operative time was shorter in the 3D printing group by 62 min. No difference was noted in the quality of reduction in either of the groups (p > 0.05).

conclusion3D imaging and printing helps in better understanding of the anatomy of acetabular fractures. It leads to reduced operative time, blood loss as well as exposure to radiation intraoperatively. There is no difference in functional outcome at final follow-up between 3D printing and traditional groups.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneHip FracturesAcetabulumBone PlatesFracture Fixation, InternalHumansPrinting, Three-DimensionalRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome3D printingAcetabular fracturesBlood lossOperative time

Identifiers

PMID32918149
OpenAlexW3086722523

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.