Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35103815›Full record

Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2022

Advantages of three-dimensional printing in the management of acetabular fracture fixed by the Kocher-Langenbeck approach: randomised controlled trial.

Mohamed Bouabdellah, Mohamed Bensalah, Chrif Kamoun, Mehdi Bellil, Mondher Kooli, Khaled Hadhri

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Three-Dimensional Printing in Pediatric Orthopaedics: Cost Analysis and Emerging Applications.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Mohamed BouabdellahDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology of Charles Nicolle Hospital of Tunis- Tunisia, University of Tunis El Manar, Farhat Hached University Campus n ° 94, ROMMANA , 1068, Tunis, Tunisia. bouabdellah.mohamed@yahoo.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8484-6115
Mohamed BensalahDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology of Charles Nicolle Hospital of Tunis- Tunisia, University of Tunis El Manar, Farhat Hached University Campus n ° 94, ROMMANA , 1068, Tunis, Tunisia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4584-2589
Chrif KamounDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology of Charles Nicolle Hospital of Tunis- Tunisia, University of Tunis El Manar, Farhat Hached University Campus n ° 94, ROMMANA , 1068, Tunis, Tunisia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1782-6162
Mehdi BellilDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology of Charles Nicolle Hospital of Tunis- Tunisia, University of Tunis El Manar, Farhat Hached University Campus n ° 94, ROMMANA , 1068, Tunis, Tunisia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1336-8595
Mondher KooliDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology of Charles Nicolle Hospital of Tunis- Tunisia, University of Tunis El Manar, Farhat Hached University Campus n ° 94, ROMMANA , 1068, Tunis, Tunisia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5299-4834
Khaled HadhriDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology of Charles Nicolle Hospital of Tunis- Tunisia, University of Tunis El Manar, Farhat Hached University Campus n ° 94, ROMMANA , 1068, Tunis, Tunisia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7424-8592

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the outcomes of the Kocher-Langenbeck reduction and fixation of the posterior structures of the acetabulum between 3D printing technique and conventional technique.

methodsForty-three patients who sustained fractures of the posterior part of the acetabulum were randomly assigned to two groups: 3D printing (G1; n = 20) and conventional technique (G2; n = 23). The surgical time, intra-operative blood loss, differences between pre-and post-operative haemoglobin, universal functional and radiographic scores, and complications were compared between the groups. The minimum follow-up was 18 months.

resultsThe average operating time (120.75 min) and intra-operative blood loss (244 ml) were lower in G1 than in G2 (125.87 min and 268.7 ml, respectively; p = 0.42, p = 0.1, respectively). The difference between the pre- and post-operative haemoglobin was 1.71 g/dl in G1 and 1.93 g/dl in G2 (p = 0.113). Post-operative complications occurred more frequently in patients in G2 (34.7%) than in patients in G1 (15%), though these differences were also not significant (p = 0.6). The radiographic result was satisfactory in 16 patients (80%) in G1 and 18 patients (78.26%) in G2 (p = 0.5). The clinical result was satisfactory in 15 patients (75%) in G1 and in 17 patients (73.9%) in G2 (p = 0.6).

conclusionsNo significant differences were found in terms of surgical time, overall complications, and radiographic or functional outcomes between 3D printing and the conventional technique.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneHip FracturesSpinal FracturesAcetabulumBlood Loss, SurgicalFracture Fixation, InternalHumansPrinting, Three-Dimensional3D printingAcetabular fractureKocher-Langenbeck approachOpen reduction and internal fixation

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.