Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33616839›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2021

Patient-specific desktop 3D-printed guides for pelvic tumour resection surgery: a precision study on cadavers.

Mónica García-Sevilla, Lydia Mediavilla-Santos, María Teresa Ruiz-Alba, Rubén Pérez-Mañanes, José Antonio Calvo-Haro, Javier Pascau

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Enhancing Precision in Pelvic Tumor Reconstruction: Early Experience and Iterative Design of Custom 3D-Printed Implants.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Mónica García-SevillaDepartamento de Bioingeniería E Ingeniería Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Avenida de La Universidad, 30, 28911, Leganés, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7330-9194
Lydia Mediavilla-SantosInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
María Teresa Ruiz-AlbaDepartamento de Bioingeniería E Ingeniería Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Avenida de La Universidad, 30, 28911, Leganés, Madrid, Spain.
Rubén Pérez-MañanesInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
José Antonio Calvo-HaroInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Javier PascauDepartamento de Bioingeniería E Ingeniería Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Avenida de La Universidad, 30, 28911, Leganés, Madrid, Spain. jpascau@ing.uc3m.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1484-731X

Funding

European Regional Development Fund "Una manera de hacer Europa" PI18/01625Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI18/01625Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades PI18/01625
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose3D-printed patient-specific instruments have become a useful tool to improve accuracy in pelvic tumour resections. However, their correct placement can be challenging in some regions due to the morphology of the bone, so it is essential to be aware of the possible placement errors in each region. In this study, we characterize these errors in common pelvic osteotomies.

methodsWe conducted an experiment with 9 cadaveric specimens, for which we acquired a pre-operative computed tomography scan. Small PSIs were designed for each case following a realistic surgical approach for four regions of the pelvis: iliac crest (C), supra-acetabular (S), ischial (I), and pubic (P). Final surgical placement was based on a post-operative scan. The resulting positions were compared with pre-operative planning, obtaining translations, rotations, and maximum osteotomy deviations in a local reference frame defined based on the bone's morphology.

resultsMean translations and rotations in the direction of the osteotomy plane were as follows: C = 5.3 mm, 6.7°; S = 1.8 mm, 5.1°; I = 1.5 mm, 3.4°; P = 1.8 mm, 3.5°. Mean translations in the remaining axes were below 2 mm. Maximum osteotomy deviations (75% of cases) were below 11.8 mm in C (7.8 mm for half-length), 7.8 mm in S (5.5 mm for half-length), 5.5 mm in I, and 3.7 mm in P.

conclusionWe have characterized placement errors for small PSIs in four regions of the pelvis. Our results show high errors in C and S PSIs in the direction of the resection plane's normal, and thus large osteotomy deviations. Deviations in short osteotomies in S, I and P and placement errors in the remaining directions were low. The PSIs used in this study are biocompatible and can be produced with a desktop 3D printer, thus minimizing manufacturing cost.

Indexed as

Printing, Three-DimensionalAcetabulumCadaverHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalOsteotomyPelvic NeoplasmsPelvisPostoperative PeriodPreoperative PeriodReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsSurgery, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedCadaveric studyDesktop 3D printingPatient-specific instrumentsPelvic tumour

Identifiers

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.