Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37363137›Full record

ReviewBiomedical materials & devices (New York, N.Y.)2023

Overcoming Challenges and Innovations in Orthopedic Prosthesis Design: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.

Pranav G Kulkarni, Namuna Paudel, Shilpa Magar, Maria Fernanda Santilli, Shubham Kashyap, Akash Kumar Baranwal, Paolo Zamboni, Priyank Vasavada, Aman Katiyar, Ajay Vikram Singh

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedical materials & devices (New York, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Pranav G KulkarniSeeta Nursing Home, Shivaji Nagar, Nashik, Maharashtra 422002 India.
Namuna PaudelDepartment of Chemistry, Amrit Campus, Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University, Lainchaur, Kathmandu, 44600 Nepal.
Shilpa MagarSeeta Nursing Home, Shivaji Nagar, Nashik, Maharashtra 422002 India.
Maria Fernanda SantilliThe Nanoinformatics Innovation Centre, C1062 La Plata, Buenos Aires Argentina.
Shubham KashyapSinghania University, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan 333515 India.
Akash Kumar BaranwalDr Baranwal's Aesthetic Dental Clinic, Sunderpur, Varanasi, 221005 India.
Paolo ZamboniChair Vascular Diseases Center, University of Ferrara, 44124 Ferrara, Italy.
Priyank VasavadaM.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru, 560054 India.
Aman KatiyarJain University, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560069 India.
Ajay Vikram SinghDepartment of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR), Maxdohrnstrasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9875-7727
Shivaji University · INAesthetic Surgery Center · USFederal Institute for Risk Assessment · DEJain University · INM.S. Ramaiah Medical College · INSinghania University · INTribhuvan University · NPUniversidad Nacional de La Plata · ARUniversity of Ferrara · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in the orthopedic prostheses design have significantly improved the quality of life for individuals with orthopedic disabilities. However, there are still critical challenges that need to be addressed to further enhance the functionality of orthopedic prostheses improving biocompatibility to promote better integration with natural tissues, enhancing durability to withstand the demands of daily use, and improving sensory feedback for better control of movement are the most pressing issues. To address these challenges, promising emerging solutions such as smart prosthetics, 3D printing, regenerative medicine, and artificial intelligence have been developed. These innovative technologies hold the potential to significantly enhance the functionality of orthopedic prostheses. Realizing the full potential of these next-generation orthopedic prostheses requires addressing several critical factors. These include interdisciplinary collaboration between experts in orthopedics, materials science, biology, and engineering, increased investment in research and development, standardization of components to ensure quality and reliability, and improved access to prosthetics. A comprehensive review of these challenges and considerations for future orthopedic prosthesis design is s provided in this paper addressing the further advances to the field. By addressing these issues, we can continue to improve the lives of individuals with orthopedic disabilities and further enhance the field of orthopedic prosthetics.

Indexed as

3D printingArtificial intelligenceBiocompatibilityDurabilityOrthopedic prosthesis designRegenerative medicineSensory feedback

Identifiers

PMID37363137
PMCPMC10180679
OpenAlexW4376269979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.