ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Comparison of customized 3D-printed prosthesis and screw-rod-cage system reconstruction following resection of periacetabular tumors.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced Functional and Surgical Outcomes With 3D Printing in Orthopedic Oncology: A Comparative Meta-Analysis Against Conventional Techniques.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Separated-incision versus T-incision for internal hemipelvectomy related to Enneking type II + III resection: comparative outcomes in a single-center retrospective cohort.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- [Research progress of three-dimensional printed customized prosthesis and its application in acetabular reconstruction of hip revision surgery].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Review
- Advanced Pelvic Girdle Reconstruction with three dimensional-printed Custom Hemipelvic Endoprostheses following Pelvic Tumour Resection.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Biomechanical and clinical outcomes of 3D-printed versus modular hemipelvic prostheses for limb-salvage reconstruction following periacetabular tumor resection: a mid-term retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Pelvic-girdle reconstruction with three-dimensional-printed endoprostheses after limb-salvage surgery for pelvic sarcomas: current landscape.The British journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Design of 3D-printed prostheses for reconstruction of periacetabular bone tumors using topology optimization.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Various operative methods are used for reconstructing pelvic girdle after resection of primary malignant periacetabular tumor has been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, effectiveness, and safety of customized three dimensional-printed prosthesis (3DP) in the reconstruction of bone defects compared with conventional reconstruction using the screw-rod-cage system. Methods: A retrospective case-control analysis of 40 patients who underwent pelvic tumor resection and reconstruction with a customized 3D-printed prosthesis (3DP), or screw-rod-cage system (SRCS) between January 2010 and December 2019 was performed. The minimum follow-up time for patients alive was 2 years. Blood loss, operation time, complications, surgical margin, local recurrence, distant metastases, status at time of latest follow-up, MSTS-93 score, Harris hip score, and postoperative radiographic parameters were recorded. Moreover, overall survival, tumor-free survival, and prosthesis survival rates in both groups were compared. Results: Customized 3DP reconstruction was performed in 15 patients, and SRCS reconstruction was done in 25 patients. The group of patients treated with customized 3DP reconstruction had significantly shorter operation time (323.7 ± 83.7 vs. 393.6 ± 98.8 min; P = 0.028) and more precise (all P < 0.05) radiographic reconstruction parameters than patients in the SRCS group. Fewer complications (P = 0.026), better MSTS score (P = 0.030), and better Harris hip score (P = 0.016) were achieved in the 3DP group. Furthermore, the survival rate of prosthesis was also significantly better in the 3DP group (P = 0.039). However, blood loss, surgical margin, local recurrence, distant metastases, and status at time of latest follow-up had no significant difference between two groups. Conclusion: Compared with the screw-rod-cage system reconstruction, the customized 3D-printed prosthesis reconstruction is equally safe and effective, but it is more accurate and time-saving and is associated with fewer complications.
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.