Article3D printing in medicine2022
Morphometric analysis of patient-specific 3D-printed acetabular cups: a comparative study of commercially available implants from 6 manufacturers.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-Term Outcomes of Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a 3D-Printed Acetabular Cup Manufactured by Directed Energy Deposition: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Characterisation of 3D-printed acetabular hip implants.EFORT open reviews · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background3D printed patient-specific titanium acetabular cups are used to treat patients with massive acetabular defects. These have highly porous surfaces, with the design intent of enhancing bony fixation. Our aim was to characterise these porous structures in commercially available designs.
methodsWe obtained 12 final-production, patient-specific 3D printed acetabular cups that had been produced by 6 manufacturers. High resolution micro-CT imaging was used to characterise morphometric features of their porous structures: (1) strut thickness, 2) the depth of the porous layer, (3) pore size and (4) the level of porosity. Additionally, we computed the surface area of each component to quantify how much titanium may be in contact with patient tissue. Statistical comparisons were made between the designs.
resultsWe found a variability between designs in relation to the thickness of the struts (0.28 to 0.65 mm), how deep the porous layers are (0.57 to 11.51 mm), the pore size (0.74 to 1.87 mm) and the level of porosity (34 to 85%). One manufacturer printed structures with different porosities between the body and flange; another manufacturer had two differing porous regions within the body of the cups. The cups had a median (range) surface area of 756.5 mm
conclusionsThere is a wide variability between manufacturers in the porous titanium structures they 3D print. We do not currently know whether there is an optimal porosity and how this variability will impact clinically on the integrity of bony fixation; this will become clearer as post market surveillance data is generated.
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.