ArticleInternational orthopaedics2023
Is three-dimension-printed mesh scaffold an alternative to reconstruct cavity bone defects near joints?
Article in International orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bone defect repair materials after bone tumour resection: from structural substitutes to biofunctionalized synergistic therapy.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Four-dimensional-printed personalized shape memory NiTi implant for minimally invasive delivery in cavitary bone defect reconstruction.Biomaterials translational · 2026Article
- Immunomodulation Using BMP-7 and IL-10 to Enhance the Mineralization Capacity of Bone Progenitor Cells in a Fracture Hematoma-Like Environment.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Advanced Pelvic Girdle Reconstruction with three dimensional-printed Custom Hemipelvic Endoprostheses following Pelvic Tumour Resection.International orthopaedics · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeReconstruction of cavity bone defects after curettage of benign bone tumours around the joint remains challenging. We designed a novel 3D-printed mesh scaffold as a substitute for bone cement, aiming to support the articular surface, protect the subchondral bone, and reduce complication rates.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed seven patients who received curettage and reconstruction using a 3D-printed mesh scaffold between January 2020 and June 2021. Pain and function were evaluated using the 10-cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the 1993 version of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS-93) score. Radiographs were used to evaluate articular surface supporting, subchondral bone protection, and complications.
resultsThe median functional MSTS-93 and VAS scores were both improved after surgery, and the median 3D-printed mesh scaffold volume was smaller than the median defect volume. Articular surface supporting, subchondral bone preservation, and osteogenesis were observed post-operatively. No related complications were observed during the last follow-up.
conclusionsThe 3D-printed mesh scaffold provided sufficient mechanical support for the articular surface and protected the subchondral bone. We recommended the 3D-printed mesh structure as an alternative to repair cavity bone defects around joints.
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.