Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37240981›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023

Three-Dimensional Printed Knee Implants: Insights into Surgeons' Points of View.

Mathieu Le Stum, Thomas Bertin, Myriam Le Goff-Pronost, Claire Apremont, Guillaume Dardenne, Ghislaine Rolland-Lozachmeur, Eric Stindel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Mathieu Le StumLaboratoire de Traitement de l'Information Médicale (LATIM), UMR 1101, Faculté de Médecine de Brest, Université de Brest, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, 29200 Brest, France.
Thomas BertinLaboratoire de Traitement de l'Information Médicale (LATIM), UMR 1101, Faculté de Médecine de Brest, Université de Brest, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, 29200 Brest, France.
Myriam Le Goff-PronostLaboratoire de Traitement de l'Information Médicale (LATIM), UMR 1101, M@rsouin, Institut Mines-Telecom, IMT Atlantique, 29200 Brest, France.
Claire ApremontLaboratoire de Traitement de l'Information Médicale (LATIM), UMR 1101, Faculté de Médecine de Brest, Université de Brest, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, 29200 Brest, France.
Guillaume DardenneLaboratoire de Traitement de l'Information Médicale (LATIM), UMR 1101, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Brest, CHU Brest, 29200 Brest, France.
Ghislaine Rolland-LozachmeurLaboratoire de Traitement de l'Information Médicale (LATIM), UMR 1101, Faculté de Médecine de Brest, Université de Brest, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, 29200 Brest, France.
Eric StindelLaboratoire de Traitement de l'Information Médicale (LATIM), UMR 1101, Faculté de Médecine de Brest, Université de Brest, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, 29200 Brest, France.

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-17-RHUS-0005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional printing is a technology that has been developed and applied in several medical specialties, especially orthopedic surgery. Knee arthroplasty is the most commonly performed procedure. To fit the morphology of each knee, surgeons can choose between different standardized off-the-shelf implant sizes or opt for customized 3D-printed implants. However, routine adoption of the latter has been slow and faces several barriers. Existing studies focus on technical improvements or case studies and do not directly address the surgeon's perspective. Our study invited surgeons to express themselves freely and answer the question "What do you think about the manufacture of a prosthesis by 3D printing?". The questionnaire was completed by 90 surgeons. On average, they had more than 10 years of experience (52, 57.8% ± 10.2%), worked in public hospitals (54, 60% ± 10.1%), and performed between 0 and 100 prostheses per year (60, 66.7% ± 9.7%). They also reported not using planning software (47, 52.2% ± 9.7%), navigation systems, or robots (62, 68.9% ± 9.6%). Regarding the use of technological innovation, they agreed on the extra surgical time needed (67, 74.4% ± 9.0%). The answers obtained were classified according to two criteria: (i) opinions, and (ii) motivations. Among the respondents, 51 (70% ± 9.5%) had positive and 22 (30% ± 9.5%) had negative opinions about 3D printing. The motivations were distributed among seven categories (surgery, materials, costs, logistics, time, customization, and regulatory) and mainly related to "pre-surgery" and "post-surgery" concerns. Finally, the results showed that the use of navigation systems or robots may be associated with a more positive view of 3DP. The purpose of our study was to examine knee surgeons' perceptions of 3DP at a time of significant expansion of this technology. Our study showed that there was no opposition to its implementation, although some surgeons indicated that they were waiting for validated results. They also questioned the entire supply chain, including hospitals, insurance companies, and manufacturers. Although there was no opposition to its implementation, 3D printing is at a crucial point in its development and its full adoption will require advances in all areas of joint replacement.

Indexed as

3D-printed implantdiscourse analysiskneeorthopedicsurgeon’s point of view

Identifiers

PMID37240981
PMCPMC10221839

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.