Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37555083›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of bioprinting2023

A state-of-the-art guide about the effects of sterilization processes on 3D-printed materials for surgical planning and medical applications: A comparative study.

Arnau Valls-Esteve, Pamela Lustig-Gainza, Nuria Adell-Gomez, Aitor Tejo-Otero, Marti Englí-Rueda, Estibaliz Julian-Alvarez, Osmeli Navarro-Sureda, Felip Fenollosa-Artés, Josep Rubio-Palau, Lucas Krauel and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of bioprinting, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

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

11 authors.

Arnau Valls-EsteveInnovation Department, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain.
Pamela Lustig-GainzaCentre CIM, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (CIM UPC), Barcelona, Spain.
Nuria Adell-GomezInnovation Department, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain.
Aitor Tejo-OteroCentre CIM, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (CIM UPC), Barcelona, Spain.
Marti Englí-RuedaInnovation Department, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain.
Estibaliz Julian-AlvarezSterilization Department, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
Osmeli Navarro-SuredaSterilization Department, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
Felip Fenollosa-ArtésCentre CIM, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (CIM UPC), Barcelona, Spain.
Josep Rubio-PalauMedicina i Recerca Translacional, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
Lucas KrauelMedicina i Recerca Translacional, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
Josep MunueraMedicina i Recerca Translacional, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgeons use different medical devices in the surgery, such as patient-specific anatomical models, cutting and positioning guides, or implants. These devices must be sterilized before being used in the operation room. There are many sterilization processes available, with autoclave, hydrogen peroxide, and ethylene oxide being the most common in hospital settings. Each method has both advantages and disadvantages in terms of mechanics, chemical interaction, and post-treatment accuracy. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the dimensional and mechanical effect of the most commonly used sterilization techniques available in clinical settings, i.e., Autoclave 121, Autoclave 134, and hydrogen peroxide (HPO), on 11 of the most used 3D-printed materials fabricated using additive manufacturing technologies. The results showed that the temperature (depending on the sterilization method) and the exposure time to that temperature influence not only the mechanical behavior but also the original dimensioning planned on the 3D model. Therefore, HPO is a better overall option for most of the materials evaluated. Finally, based on the results of the study, a recommendation guide on sterilization methods per material, technology, and clinical application is presented.

Indexed as

3D printing accuracyAdditive manufacturingMaterialsSterilizationSurgical planning

Identifiers

PMID37555083
PMCPMC10406103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.