ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2021
Planning acetabular fracture reduction using a patient-specific biomechanical model: a prospective and comparative clinical study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advantages of three-dimensional printing in the management of acetabular fracture fixed by the Kocher-Langenbeck approach: randomised controlled trial.International orthopaedics · 2022Trial
- Emerging Technologies for Assisted Fracture Reduction: A Systematic Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- An End-to-End Geometry-Based Pipeline for Automatic Preoperative Surgical Planning of Pelvic Fracture Reduction and Fixation.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2025Article
- Computer-assisted preoperative planning of bone fracture fixation surgery: A state-of-the-art review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA simple, patient-specific biomechanical model (PSBM) is proposed in which the main surgical tools and actions can be simulated, which enables clinicians to evaluate different strategies for an optimal surgical planning. A prospective and comparative clinical study was performed to assess early clinical and radiological results.
methodsFrom January 2019 to July 2019, a PSBM was created for every operated acetabular fracture (simulation group). DICOM data were extracted from the pre-operative high-resolution CT scans to build a 3D model of the fracture using segmentation methods. A PSBM was implemented in a custom software allowing a biomechanical simulation of the surgery in terms of reduction sequences. From July 2019 to December 2019, every patient with an operated for acetabular fracture without PSBM was included in the standard group. Surgery duration, blood loss, radiological results and per-operative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups.
resultsTwenty-two patients were included, 10 in the simulation group and 12 in the standard group. The two groups were comparable regarding age, time to surgery, fracture pattern distribution and surgical approaches. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the simulation group: 113 min ± 33 (60-180) versus 184 ± 58 (90-260), p = 0.04. The mean blood loss was significantly lower in the simulation group, p = 0.01. No statistical significant differences were found regarding radiological results (p = 0.16). No per-operative complications were recorded.
conclusionThis study confirms that pre-operative planning in acetabular surgery based on a PSBM results in a shorter operative time and a reduction of blood loss during surgery. This study also confirms the feasibility of PSBM planning in daily clinical routine. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II: prospective study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33763792What 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.