Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33170384›Full record

Review3D printing in medicine2020

3D - Printed Patient Specific Instrumentation in Corrective Osteotomy of the Femur and Pelvis: A Review of the Literature.

Njalalle Baraza, Chris Chapman, Sima Zakani, Kishore Mulpuri

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in 3D printing in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Osteotomies of the pediatric hip joint].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Applications of 3D printing in orthopedics: a scoping review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 3D-assisted corrective osteotomies of the distal radius: a comparison of pre-contoured conventional implants versus patient-specific implants.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. 3D Printing Technology in Pediatric Orthopedics: a Primer for the Clinician.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Njalalle BarazaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, BC Children's Hospital, 1D.66-4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3V4, Canada.
Chris ChapmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Sima ZakaniBC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kishore MulpuriDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, BC Children's Hospital, 1D.66-4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3V4, Canada. kmulpuri@cw.bc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7713-6278

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe paediatric patient population has considerable variation in anatomy. The use of Computed Tomography (CT)-based digital models to design three-dimensionally printed patient specific instrumentation (PSI) has recently been applied for correction of deformity in orthopedic surgery. This review sought to determine the existing application of this technology currently in use within paediatric orthopaedics, and assess the potential benefits that this may provide to patients and surgeons.

methodsA review was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for published literature, as well as Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov for grey literature. The search strategy revolved around the research question: "What is the clinical impact of using 3D printed PSI for proximal femoral or pelvic osteotomy in paediatric orthopaedics?" Two reviewers, using predetermined inclusion criteria, independently performed title and abstract review in order to select articles for full text review. Data extracted included effect on operating time and intraoperative image use, as well as osteotomy and screw positioning accuracy. Data were combined in a narrative synthesis; meta-analysis was not performed given the diversity of study designs and interventions.

resultsIn total, ten studies were included: six case control studies, three case series and a case report. Five studies directly compared operating time using PSI to conventional techniques, with two showing a significant decrease in the number of intraoperative images and operative time. Eight studies reported improved accuracy in executing the surgical plan compared to conventional methods.

conclusionCompared to conventional methods of performing femoral or pelvic osteotomy, use of PSI has led to improved accuracy and precision, decreased procedure times, and decreased intra-operative imaging requirements. Additionally, the technology has become more cost effective and accessible since its initial inception and use.

Indexed as

3D printingFemoral osteotomyOrthopaedic surgeryPatient specific instrumentationPelvic osteotomy

Identifiers

PMID33170384
PMCPMC7653713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.