Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35530954›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022

Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation.

David A Salazar, Justin Cramer, Nicholas W Markin, Nathaniel H Hunt, Gabe Linke, Justin Siebler, Jorge Zuniga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

David A SalazarDepartment of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA.
Justin CramerDepartment of Radiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Nicholas W MarkinDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Nathaniel H HuntDepartment of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA.
Gabe LinkeDepartment of Radiology, Children's Hospital and Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Justin SieblerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Jorge ZunigaDepartment of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA.

Funding

The influence of 3D printed prostheses on neural activation patterns of the primary motor cortex in children with unilateral congenital upper-limb reductionsR01NS114282 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA OMAHA · PI KNARR, BRIAN ANDREW, ZUNIGA, JORGE M · 2020 to 2023
$1.5M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS114282
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Acetabular fractures account for 10% of pelvis injuries, which are especially difficult to treat in developing countries with less access to resources. 3D printing has previously been shown to be a beneficial method of surgical planning, however the steep initial costs associated with purchasing a 3D printer may prevent some facilities form utilizing this technique. The purpose of this study was to develop 3D printed models for acetabular surgery using methodologies of varying cost to determine differences in model accuracy and overall quality. Methods: Five acetabular fracture models were developed from de-identified CT data using (I) proprietary and open-source segmentation software and (II) fused deposition modeling (FDM) and stereolithography (SLA) 3D printing methods. The distance between the posterior inferior iliac spine (PIIS) and the ischial spine as well as a unique fracture fragment for each model was compared between the different printing methodologies. The models were then given to 5 physicians and assessed on their overall accuracy compared to traditional 2D images. Results: Printing methodology did not affect the distance from PIIS to ischial spine (P=0.263). However, fracture fragment representation differed across 3D printed models, with the most accurate model produced by the high-end resin-based printer (P=0.007). The survey analysis showed that the low-cost printing methods produced models that were not as accurate in their representation of the fractured region (P=0.008). Conclusions: The differences between models developed using traditional methods and low-cost methods have slight differences but may still provide useful information when developing a surgical plan.

Indexed as

3D printingacetabular fractureadditive manufacturinganatomic modelsurgical planning

Identifiers

PMID35530954
PMCPMC9073767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.