ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Application of FDM 3D Printing in Surgery and Traumatology: A Systematic Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of pelvic bone segmentation for 3d printing: a study of segmentation accuracy based on anatomic landmarks to evaluate the influence of the observer.3D printing in medicine · 2024Article
- Quality assurance of 3D-printed patient specific anatomical models: a systematic review.3D printing in medicine · 2024Article
- Proximal femoral defect classifications in revision total hip arthroplasty from X-rays imaging to advanced 3D imaging: a narrative review.Annals of joint · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.