ReviewSeminars in plastic surgery2022
Virtual Planning and 3D Printing in the Management of Acute Orbital Fractures and Post-Traumatic Deformities.
Review in Seminars in plastic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Managing Orbital Floor Fractures With Three-Dimensional (3D)-Printed Surgical Guides: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Surgical precision and clinical outcomes of 3D preformed titanium mesh in orbital blowout fracture reconstruction: a comparative study from Thailand.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2026Article
- From Autologous Bone Tissue to Bioengineered Material Solutions in Post-Traumatic Orbital Wall Reconstruction: An Overview.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Craniomaxillofacial Surgery with Computer-generated Three-dimensional Solid Models.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2024Article
- Evolution of Medical Modeling and 3D Printing in Microvascular Midface Reconstruction: Literature Review and Experience at MD Anderson Cancer Center.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and three-dimensional (3D) printing have advanced surgical reconstruction of orbital defects. Individualized 3D models of patients' orbital bony and soft tissues provide the surgeon with corrected orbital volume based on normalized anatomy, precise location of critical structures, and when needed a better visualization of the defect or altered anatomy that are paramount in preoperative planning. The use of 3D models preoperatively allows surgeons to improve the accuracy and safety of reconstruction, reduces intraoperative time, and most importantly lowers the rate of common postoperative complications, including over- or undercontouring of plates, orbital implant malposition, enophthalmos, and hypoglobus. As 3D printers and materials become more accessible and cheaper, the utility of printing patient-specific implants becomes more feasible. This article summarizes the traditional surgical management of orbital fractures and reviews advances in VSP and 3D printing in this field. It also discusses the use of in-house (point-of-care) VSP and 3D printing to further advance care of acute orbital trauma and posttraumatic deformities.
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.