Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34122751›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2021

Application of 3D Printing in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.

Prasoon Kumar, Pulak Vatsya, Rajesh Kumar Rajnish, Aman Hooda, Mandeep S Dhillon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Prasoon KumarDepartment of Orthopaedics, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Pulak VatsyaDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, India.
Rajesh Kumar RajnishDepartment of Orthopaedics, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Aman HoodaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Mandeep S DhillonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.ORCID 0000-0002-2592-1362

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIdeal surgical positioning and placement of implants during arthroplasty are crucial for long-term survival and optimal functional outcomes. Inadequate bone stock or defects, and anatomical variations can influence the outcomes. Three-dimensional printing (3DP) is an evolving technology that could provide patient-specific instrumentation and implants for arthroplasty, taking into account anatomical variations and defects. However, its application in this field is still not adequately studied and described. The present review was conceptualised to assess the practicality, the pros and cons and the current status of usage of 3DP in the field of hip and knee arthroplasties and joint reconstruction surgeries.

methodsA PubMed database search was conducted and a total number of 135 hits were obtained, out of which only 30 articles were relevant. These 30 studies were assessed to obtain the qualitative evidence of the applicability and the current status of 3D printing in arthroplasty.

resultsCurrently, 3DP is used for preoperative planning with 3D models, to assess bone defects and anatomy, to determine the appropriate cuts and to develop patient-specific instrumentation and implants (cages, liners, tibial base plates, femoral stem). Its models can be used for teaching and training young surgeons, as well as patient education regarding the surgical complexities. The outcomes of using customised instrumentations and implants have been promising and 3D printing can evolve into routine practice in the years to come.

conclusion3D printing in arthroplasty is an evolving field with promising results; however, current evidence is insufficient to determine significant advantages that can be termed cost effective and readily available.

Indexed as

3D3 dimensional printingHip arthroplastyKnee arthroplastyPatient specific instrumentationPSI

Identifiers

PMID34122751
PMCPMC8149509

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.