Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35532805›Full record

ReviewDer Unfallchirurg2022

[3D printing in fracture treatment : Current practice and best practice consensus].

Christian Fang, Leyi Cai, Gabriel Chu, Rahat Jarayabhand, Ji Wan Kim, Gavin O'Neill

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Unfallchirurg, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Christian FangQueen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, Volksrepublik China. fangcx@gmail.com.
Leyi CaiFirst Affiliated Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Volksrepublik China.
Gabriel ChuUnited Christian Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, Volksrepublik China.
Rahat JarayabhandBhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ji Wan KimAsan Medical Centre, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Südkorea.
Gavin O'NeillNational University Hospital, Singapur, Singapur.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of 3D printing in orthopedic trauma is supported by clinical evidence. Existing computed tomography (CT) data are exploited for better stereotactic identification of morphological features of the fracture and enhanced surgical planning. Due to complex logistic, technical and resource constraints, deployment of 3D printing is not straightforward from the hospital management perspective. As a result not all trauma surgeons are able to confidently integrate 3D printing into the daily practice. We carried out an expert panel survey on six trauma units which utilized 3D printing routinely. The most frequent indications are acetabular and articular fractures and malalignments. Infrastructure and manpower structure varied between units. The installation of industrial grade machines and dedicated software as well as the use of trained personnel can enhance the capacity and reliability of fracture treatment. Setting up interdisciplinary jointly used 3d printing departments with sound financial and management structures may improve sustainability. The sometimes substantial logistic and technical barriers which impede the rapid delivery of 3D printed models are discussed.

Indexed as

Fracture Fixation, InternalPrinting, Three-DimensionalAcetabulumHumansReproducibility of ResultsAnatomic modelsFracture fixationIntra-articular fracturesOrganization and administrationPatient-specific instruments

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.