Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37237631›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Analysis of the Robotic-Based In Situ Bioprinting Workflow for the Regeneration of Damaged Tissues through a Case Study.

Gabriele Maria Fortunato, Sofia Sigismondi, Matteo Nicoletta, Sara Condino, Nicola Montemurro, Giovanni Vozzi, Vincenzo Ferrari, Carmelo De Maria

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. A Pill That Prints-An Ingestible Bioprinter for Non-Invasive Structured Bioink Deposition.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gabriele Maria FortunatoDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0260-4014
Sofia SigismondiDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Matteo NicolettaDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Sara CondinoDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5235-0414
Nicola MontemurroDepartment of Neurosurgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, 56126 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3686-8907
Giovanni VozziDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9414-9994
Vincenzo FerrariDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9294-2828
Carmelo De MariaDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1368-3571
University of Pisa · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · IT

Funding

European Union ECS00000017Tuscany region B-ROBOT funded by POR CreO FESR Tuscany region 2014-2020, Bando 2 R&S 2020 - Azione 1.1.5.a1Tuscany region ENDIADI funded by the Tuscany region under the call "Bando Assegni di ricerca anno 2021 - Fondo sviluppo e coesione 2014-2020"
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to critically analyse the workflow of the in situ bioprinting procedure, presenting a simulated neurosurgical case study, based on a real traumatic event, for collecting quantitative data in support of this innovative approach. After a traumatic event involving the head, bone fragments may have to be removed and a replacement implant placed through a highly demanding surgical procedure in terms of surgeon dexterity. A promising alternative to the current surgical technique is the use of a robotic arm to deposit the biomaterials directly onto the damaged site of the patient following a planned curved surface, which can be designed pre-operatively. Here we achieved an accurate planning-patient registration through pre-operative fiducial markers positioned around the surgical area, reconstructed starting from computed tomography images. Exploiting the availability of multiple degrees of freedom for the regeneration of complex and also overhanging parts typical of anatomical defects, in this work the robotic platform IMAGObot was used to regenerate a cranial defect on a patient-specific phantom. The in situ bioprinting process was then successfully performed showing the great potential of this innovative technology in the field of cranial surgery. In particular, the accuracy of the deposition process was quantified, as well as the duration of the whole procedure was compared to a standard surgical practice. Further investigations include a biological characterisation over time of the printed construct as well as an in vitro and in vivo analysis of the proposed approach, to better analyse the biomaterial performances in terms of osteo-integration with the native tissue.

Indexed as

bone repaircranial surgerymaterial extrusionnon-planar slicingpath registrationrobotic-based in situ bioprinting

Identifiers

PMID37237631
PMCPMC10215654
OpenAlexW4378516379

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.