Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Comparing the effectiveness of 3D printing technology in the treatment of clavicular fracture between surgeons with different experiences.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D printing technology combined with personalized plates for complex distal intra-articular fractures of the trimalleolar ankle.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Advances in 3D Printing Applications for Personalized Orthopedic Surgery: From Anatomical Modeling to Patient-Specific Implants.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- 3D printing-assisted surgery for the treatment of proximal clavicle fracture with ipsilateral acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a case description.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to examine the use of 3D printing technology to treat clavicular fractures by skilled and inexperienced surgeons.
methodsA total of 80 patients with clavicle fractures (from February 2017 to May 2021) were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided randomly into four groups: group A: Patients underwent low-dose CT scans, and 3D models were printed before inexperienced surgeons performed surgeries; group B: Standard-dose CT were taken, and 3D models were printed before experienced surgeons performed surgeries; group C and D: Standard-dose CT scans were taken in both groups, and the operations were performed differently by inexperienced (group C) and experienced (group D) surgeons. This study documented the operation time, blood loss, incision length, and the number of intraoperative fluoroscopies.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were found in age, gender, fracture site, and fracture type (P value: 0.23-0.88). Group A showed shorter incision length and fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy times than groups C and D (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood loss volume, incision length, and intraoperative fluoroscopy times between group A and group B (P value range: 0.11-0.28). The operation time of group A was no longer than those of groups C and D (P value range: 0.11 and 0.24).
conclusionThe surgical effectiveness of inexperienced surgeons who applied 3D printing technology before clavicular fracture operation was better than those of inexperienced and experienced surgeons who did not use preoperative 3D printing technology.
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.