Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2022
Advantages of three-dimensional printing in the management of acetabular fracture fixed by the Kocher-Langenbeck approach: randomised controlled trial.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of three-dimensional printing technology assisted open reduction and internal fixation versus conventional surgery in the treatment of acetabular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Developing a core outcome set for acetabular fractures: a systematic review (part I).Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Three-dimensional printed models improve orthopedic residents' understanding of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Pediatric Orthopaedics: Cost Analysis and Emerging Applications.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Review
- Functional and Vascular Outcomes of Posterior Acetabular Wall Osteosynthesis via the Kocher-Langenbeck Approach: A Dynamic Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Kocher-Langenbeck approach combined with TiRobot-assisted percutaneous anterior column screw fixation for transverse with or without posterior wall fractures of acetabulum: a retrospective study.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Combining 3D printing technology with customized metal plates for the treatment of complex acetabular fractures: A retrospective study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
35103815What 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.