Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36647070›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023

Additively manufactured controlled porous orthopedic joint replacement designs to reduce bone stress shielding: a systematic review.

Sarah Safavi, Yihang Yu, Dale L Robinson, Hans A Gray, David C Ackland, Peter V S Lee

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
22.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [A simulation study on the differences in compressive mechanical properties of Voronoi porous structures with two strut-diameter morphologies].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A review of 3D printed medical implant design.3D printing in medicine · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Design and optimisation of patient-specific porous femoral stems.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah SafaviDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Yihang YuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Dale L RobinsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Hans A GrayDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
David C AcklandDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Peter V S LeeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia. pvlee@unimelb.edu.au.
University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council IC180100024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotal joint replacements are an established treatment for patients suffering from reduced mobility and pain due to severe joint damage. Aseptic loosening due to stress shielding is currently one of the main reasons for revision surgery. As this phenomenon is related to a mismatch in mechanical properties between implant and bone, stiffness reduction of implants has been of major interest in new implant designs. Facilitated by modern additive manufacturing technologies, the introduction of porosity into implant materials has been shown to enable significant stiffness reduction; however, whether these devices mitigate stress-shielding associated complications or device failure remains poorly understood.

methodsIn this systematic review, a broad literature search was conducted in six databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, Compendex, and Inspec) aiming to identify current design approaches to target stress shielding through controlled porous structures. The search keywords included 'lattice,' 'implant,' 'additive manufacturing,' and 'stress shielding.'

resultsAfter the screening of 2530 articles, a total of 46 studies were included in this review. Studies focusing on hip, knee, and shoulder replacements were found. Three porous design strategies were identified, specifically uniform, graded, and optimized designs. The latter included personalized design approaches targeting stress shielding based on patient-specific data. All studies reported a reduction of stress shielding achieved by the presented design.

conclusionNot all studies used quantitative measures to describe the improvements, and the main stress shielding measures chosen varied between studies. However, due to the nature of the optimization approaches, optimized designs were found to be the most promising. Besides the stiffness reduction, other factors such as mechanical strength can be considered in the design on a patient-specific level. While it was found that controlled porous designs are overall promising to reduce stress shielding, further research and clinical evidence are needed to determine the most superior design approach for total joint replacement implants.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipProstheses and ImplantsHumansPorosityProsthesis Design3D printingAseptic looseningJoint prosthesisLattice structureOrthopedic implantOsseointegration

Identifiers

PMID36647070
PMCPMC9841707
OpenAlexW4316467839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.