ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Time is crucial in malignant tumor cases: Speeding up the process of patient-specific implant creation.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between patient-specific implants and hand-bent plates in mandibular reconstruction.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patient-specific implants are commonly used to reconstruct lower jaw defects following surgical treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The planning process of surgery is time-consuming and can delay the "time to surgery," which should be as short as possible. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the planning process to speed up and identify any sources of problems. Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, we enrolled patients who underwent continuous resection of the mandible in combination with reconstruction with a patient-specific implant between 2016 and 2021. The predictor variables were in-house training of the engineers and implant complexity (complex [with additional features] vs. less complex [resembling standard reconstruction plates]). The outcome variables were the duration of communication, message length, and the need for synchronous communication or modifications to the original design. Descriptive and univariate statistics were computed, and statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: The data from 83 patients were included in this study. The mean duration of communication was 14.05 ± 13.58 days. The implant complexity and training status of the engineer had no statistically significant influence on the primary outcome variables. As for the secondary outcome variables, the implant complexity significantly influenced the chance that the planned operation had to be postponed (15/16 [93.75%] were complex cases, P = 0.001). The most frequent cause of problems in the planning process was an insufficient dataset, which was not dependent on the type of imaging. Conclusions: The overall duration of the patient-specific implant creation process is too long to meet oncological requirements. Therefore, standardization of the planning process to accelerate implant creation is of utmost importance. In addition, a common standard imaging format (independent of the type of imaging) for oncological cases could eliminate all delays caused by insufficient datasets in the future.
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.