Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35166908›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2022

The cutting edge of customized surgery: 3D-printed models for patient-specific interventions in otology and auricular management-a systematic review.

Adam Omari, Martin Frendø, Mads Sølvsten Sørensen, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen, Andreas Frithioff

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effect of case-specific 3D-printed models on surgical performance in cadaveric dissection-a randomized controlled trial.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Adam OmariDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Copenhagen, Denmark. adam.omari@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5360-0515
Martin FrendøDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mads Sølvsten SørensenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Steven Arild Wuyts AndersenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Andreas FrithioffDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Hearing and Balance Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose3D-printing (three-dimensional printing) is an emerging technology with promising applications for patient-specific interventions. Nonetheless, knowledge on the clinical applicability of 3D-printing in otology and research on its use remains scattered. Understanding these new treatment options is a prerequisite for clinical implementation, which could improve patient outcomes. This review aims to explore current applications of 3D-printed patient-specific otologic interventions, including state of the evidence, strengths, limitations, and future possibilities.

methodsFollowing the PRISMA statement, relevant studies were identified through Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Data on the manufacturing process and interventions were extracted by two reviewers. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tools.

resultsScreening yielded 590 studies; 63 were found eligible and included for analysis. 3D-printed models were used as guides, templates, implants, and devices. Outer ear interventions comprised 73% of the studies. Overall, optimistic sentiments on 3D-printed models were reported, including increased surgical precision/confidence, faster manufacturing/operation time, and reduced costs/complications. Nevertheless, study quality was low as most studies failed to use relevant objective outcomes, compare new interventions with conventional treatment, and sufficiently describe manufacturing.

conclusionSeveral clinical interventions using patient-specific 3D-printing in otology are considered promising. However, it remains unclear whether these interventions actually improve patient outcomes due to lack of comparison with conventional methods and low levels of evidence. Further, the reproducibility of the 3D-printed interventions is compromised by insufficient reporting. Future efforts should focus on objective, comparative outcomes evaluated in large-scale studies.

Indexed as

OtolaryngologyPrinting, Three-DimensionalHumansProstheses and ImplantsReproducibility of Results3D-printingAdditive manufacturingEar surgeryOtologyPatient-specific

Identifiers

PMID35166908

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.