Review3D printing in medicine2020
3D - Printed Patient Specific Instrumentation in Corrective Osteotomy of the Femur and Pelvis: A Review of the Literature.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-Analysis of 3D Printing Applications in Traumatic Fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- [Osteotomies of the pediatric hip joint].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Corrective derotation osteotomy of the proximal phalanx using intraoperative Mixed Reality guidance.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Indications, Technique, and Outcomes of Patient Specific Instrumentation for Osteotomy About the Knee.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- Applications of 3D printing in orthopedics: a scoping review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Effects of femoral de-rotation on lower limb alignment using patient-specific guides with reliance on EOS scan, a retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Does Freehand, Patient-specific Instrumentation or Surgical Navigation Perform Better for Allograft Reconstruction After Tumor Resection? A Preclinical Synthetic Bone Study.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024Article
- The feasibility of a novel 3D-Printed patient specific cutting guide for extended trochanteric osteotomies.3D printing in medicine · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Clinical Applications of "In-Hospital" 3D Printing in Hip Surgery: A Systematic Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- 3D Printing Technology in Pediatric Orthopedics: a Primer for the Clinician.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023Review
- A Two-Step Approach for 3D-Guided Patient-Specific Corrective Limb Osteotomies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Computer-Aided Design and 3D Printing of Hemipelvic Endoprosthesis for Personalized Limb-Salvage Reconstruction after Periacetabular Tumor Resection.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Three-dimensional printing in paediatric orthopaedic surgery.World journal of orthopedics · 2022Article
- Correction of complex three-dimensional deformities at the proximal femur using indirect reduction with angle blade plate and patient-specific instruments: a technical note.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- Commentary: Meta-Analysis of 3D Printing Applications in Traumatic Fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.