Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38376810›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2024

Dimensional accuracy and precision and surgeon perception of additively manufactured bone models: effect of manufacturing technology and part orientation.

Emir Benca, Barbara Eckhart, Alexander Stoegner, Ewald Unger, Martin Bittner-Frank, Andreas Strassl, Claudia Gahleitner, Lena Hirtler, Reinhard Windhager, Gerhard M Hobusch and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emir BencaDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria. emir.benca@meduniwien.ac.at.
Barbara EckhartDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Alexander StoegnerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Ewald UngerCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Martin Bittner-FrankDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Andreas StrasslDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Claudia GahleitnerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Lena HirtlerCenter for Anatomy and Cell Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Reinhard WindhagerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Gerhard M HobuschDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Francesco MoscatoCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Cancer Research · AT

Funding

Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft 858060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdditively manufactured (AM) anatomical bone models are primarily utilized for training and preoperative planning purposes. As such, they must meet stringent requirements, with dimensional accuracy being of utmost importance. This study aimed to evaluate the precision and accuracy of anatomical bone models manufactured using three different AM technologies: digital light processing (DLP), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and PolyJetting (PJ), built in three different part orientations. Additionally, the study sought to assess surgeons' perceptions of how well these models mimic real bones in simulated osteosynthesis.

methodsComputer-aided design (CAD) models of six human radii were generated from computed tomography (CT) imaging data. Anatomical models were then manufactured using the three aforementioned technologies and in three different part orientations. The surfaces of all models were 3D-scanned and compared with the original CAD models. Furthermore, an anatomical model of a proximal femur including a metastatic lesion was manufactured using the three technologies, followed by (mock) osteosynthesis performed by six surgeons on each type of model. The surgeons' perceptions of the quality and haptic properties of each model were assessed using a questionnaire.

resultsThe mean dimensional deviations from the original CAD model ranged between 0.00 and 0.13 mm with maximal inaccuracies < 1 mm for all models. In surgical simulation, PJ models achieved the highest total score on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (with 1 and 5 representing the lowest and highest level of agreement, respectively), (3.74 ± 0.99) in the surgeons' perception assessment, followed by DLP (3.41 ± 0.99) and FDM (2.43 ± 1.02). Notably, FDM was perceived as unsuitable for surgical simulation, as the material melted during drilling and sawing.

conclusionsIn conclusion, the choice of technology and part orientation significantly influenced the accuracy and precision of additively manufactured bone models. However, all anatomical models showed satisfying accuracies and precisions, independent of the AM technology or part orientation. The anatomical and functional performance of FDM models was rated by surgeons as poor.

Indexed as

AccuracyAdditive manufacturingAnatomical modelBoneSurgery

Identifiers

PMID38376810
PMCPMC10877873
OpenAlexW4391964365

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.