ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2022
Introduction of 3D Printing in a German Municipal Hospital-Practice Guide for CMF Surgery.
Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study Design: This study aimed to introduce 3D printing in a municipal hospital to improve the treatment of craniomaxillofacial patients and optimize costs and operating time. Thus we describe the implementation of low-cost in-house 3D printing to facilitate orbital- and mandible reconstruction in CMF surgery. Moreover, we address legal requirements, safety at work, fire- and data protection. Finally, we want to share our experiences using 3D printing and point out its advantages in providing better patient care. Methods: We outline the setup of in-house 3D printing and focus on obeying German health care regulations. We based our approach on a fused deposition modeling 3D printer and free software. As proof of concept, we treated 4 cases of severe orbital trauma and 1 case of mandibular reconstruction. We printed a 3D patient-specific model for each case and adapted a titanium mesh implant, respectively, a titanium reconstruction plate before performing the surgery. Results: Our approach reduced costs, duration of anesthesia, operating time, recovery time, and postoperative swelling and increased the revenue. Functional outcome in orbital reconstruction like eye movement and double vision, was improved compared to the conventional technique. No severe complications like loss-of-vision or surgical revision occurred. Likewise, mandibular reconstruction showed no plate loosening or plate fracture. Conclusion: The implementation of cost-efficient 3D printing resulted in successful patient treatment with excellent outcomes. Our practice guide offers a 3D printing workflow and could be adapted to fit the needs of other specialties like neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery as well.
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.