ArticlePloS one2021
Three-dimensional-printed custom guides for bipolar coxofemoral osteochondral allograft in dogs.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical applications and prospects of 3D printing guide templates in orthopaedics.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2022Review
- Articular Cartilage Regeneration in Veterinary Medicine.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Correction: Three-dimensional-printed custom guides for bipolar coxofemoral osteochondral allograft in dogs.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this experimental study was to develop and evaluate a three-dimensionally printed custom surgical guide system for performing bipolar coxofemoral osteochondral allograft transplantation in dogs. Five cadaver dogs, weighing 20-38 kg were used in the study. Custom surgical guides were designed and three-dimensionally printed to facilitate accurate execution of a surgical plan for bipolar coxofemoral osteochondral allograft transplantation. Guide-assisted technique was compared to freehand technique in each cadaver. Surgical time was recorded and postoperative computed tomography and three-dimensional segmentation was performed. Femoral version and inclination angles, femoral neck length, and gap present at the femoral and acetabular donor-recipient interface was compared between the virtual surgical plan and postoperative outcome for both techniques. One-tailed paired t-test (P < .05) was used for statistical analysis. When compared to free-hand preparation, mean donor femoral preparation time was 10 minutes longer and mean recipient preparation time was 2 minutes longer when using guides (p = 0.011 and p = 0.001, respectively). No difference in acetabular preparation time was noted between groups. Gap volume at the acetabular and femoral donor-recipient interface was not different between groups. Mean difference between the planned and postoperative version angle was 6.2° lower for the guide group when compared to the freehand group (p = 0.025). Mean femoral neck length was 2 mm closer to the plan when using guides than when performing surgery freehand (p = 0.037). Accuracy for femoral angle of inclination was not different between groups. Custom surgical guides warrants consideration in developing bipolar coxofemoral osteochondral allograft transplantation as an alternative surgical technique for managing hip disorders in dogs.
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.