ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2024
Revision for Solid-Body Breakage of the 3D-Printed Implant Following Joint-Sparing Surgery: A Technical Note.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Research progress in repair and reconstruction of tumor-related bone defects in proximal femur].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe advent of three-dimensional (3D)-printed custom-made implants has revolutionized orthopaedic surgery, particularly in limb- and joint-sparing surgeries. However, clinical experience in the revision for 3D-printed implant breakage is lacking, and the revision surgery remains challenging. This study reported the revision of proximal tibial prosthetic reconstruction necessitated by solid-body breakage of a 3D-printed implant, aiming to detail the surgical techniques and evaluate postoperative outcomes. CASE PRESENTATION: A patient diagnosed with osteosarcoma underwent joint-sparing surgery with a 3D-printed implant, but implant breakage occurred during subsequent follow-up. The initial implant was broken into two parts: the proximal implant breakage part (IBP) integrated with the host bone and the distal IBP left in the prosthetic component. Four revision protocols were devised, each based on one of the four hypothesis results of taking out the initial implant. A new custom-made implant and a series of assistance devices ("positioning devices," "drill devices," "tap devices," and "separator devices") were specifically prepared for revision surgery. The proximal IBP was taken out from the host bone, but the distal IBP was not taken out from the initial prosthetic component. The patient received the new custom-made implant for reconstruction, with the knee joint preserved. The patient recovered uneventfully after revision surgery and achieved satisfactory function. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society was 28 at the last follow-up. No complications were detected during the follow-up period.
conclusionComprehensive preoperative planning and preparation, enabling the surgeon to effectively address intraoperative challenges, are crucial for the successful revision of 3D-printed implant breakage. It is feasible to re-implant a 3D-printed custom-made implant, demonstrating satisfactory clinical and functional results.
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.