SynthesisThe Journal of hand surgery, European volume2024
Functional outcome of 2-D- and 3-D-guided corrective forearm osteotomies: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The Journal of hand surgery, European volume, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Corrective osteotomies of malunited proximal humerus fractures with 3D patient-specific guides: a feasibility study.JSES international · 2026Article
- Treatment of extra-articular scapula fracture malunion using pre-operative three-dimentional printing: a case report and overview of the literature.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- Assessment of "Spin" in the abstracts of systematic reviews in leading upper extremity surgery journals over the past 10 years: A cross-sectional methodological study.Shoulder & elbow · 2026Review
- Exploring the cost-effectiveness of 3-D-guided versus traditional 2-D corrective osteotomy in patients with a distal radius malunion.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Corrective osteotomy for distal radius malunion using 3D-printed patient-specific guides and spacers: a retrospective comparative study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Automatic measurements of volar tilt and radial inclination of the distal radius on 3D models: validation against manual methods.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- A shape completion model for corrective osteotomy of distal radius malunion.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- 3D-assisted corrective osteotomies of the distal radius: a comparison of pre-contoured conventional implants versus patient-specific implants.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed a systematic review to compare conventional (2-D) versus 3-D-guided corrective osteotomies regarding intraoperative results, patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, incidence of complications and pain score. PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched, and 53 articles were included, reporting 1257 patients undergoing forearm corrective osteotomies between 2010 and 2022. 3-D-guided surgery resulted in a greater improvement in median Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (28, SD 7 vs. 35, SD 5) and fewer complications (12% vs. 6%). Pain scores and range of motion were similar between 3-D-guided and conventional surgery. 3-D-guided corrective osteotomy surgery appears to improve patient-reported outcomes and reduce complications compared to conventional methods. However, due to the limited number of comparative studies and the heterogeneity of the studies, a large randomized controlled trial is needed to draw definitive conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.