ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Shape suitability and mechanical safety of customised hip implants: Three-dimensional printed acetabular cup for hip arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mechanical versus kinematic alignment for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Owing to an increase in the number of hip arthroplasty surgeries, the number of implant replacement surgeries is increasing rapidly as well. This necessitates the study of hip joint conditions. Therefore, Paprosky defined a classification system to indicate the degree of damage to the hip joint. In this study, a customised hip implant suitable for Paprosky classification Type ⅡC and over was designed. The shape, suitability, and mechanical safety of the worst-case model for the implant were evaluated. Materials and methods: To identify the implant size depending on states over Type ⅡC acetabulum bone loss, a size range was selected and a customised implant was designed according to the computed tomography data within the size range. The implant was designed for the flange, hook, and flattened model types. The worst-case selection test was conducted using finite element analysis. The von Mises stresses of the flange, hook, and flattened models were found as 76.223, 136.99, and 80.791 MPa, respectively. Therefore, the hook-type model was selected as the worst case for the mechanical performance test. Results: A bending test was conducted on the hook-type model without fracture and failure at 5344.56 N. The proposed customised implant was found suitable for Type ⅢA acetabulum bone loss, whereas the shape suitability and mechanical safety were verified for the worst case. Conclusion: The shape of a customised implant suitable for Paprosky ⅢA type was designed. The shape suitability and mechanical safety were evaluated using finite element method analysis and bending tests. Clinical validation is required through subsequent clinical evaluation.
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.