Article3D printing in medicine2024
Fluoroscopically calibrated 3D-printed patient-specific instruments improve the accuracy of osteotomy during bone tumor resection adjacent to joints.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and Accuracy of a Dual-Function AR-Guided System for PSI Positioning and Osteotomy Execution in Pelvic Tumour Surgery: A Cadaveric Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInadequate surface matching, variation in the guide design, and soft tissue on the skeletal surface may make it difficult to accurately place the 3D-printed patient-specific instrument (PSI) exactly to the designated site, leading to decreased accuracy, or even errors. Consequently, we developed a novel 3D-printed PSI with fluoroscopy-guided positioning markers to enhance the accuracy of osteotomies in joint-preserving surgery. The current study was to compare whether the fluoroscopically calibrated PSI (FCPSI) can achieve better accuracy compared with freehand resection and conventional PSI (CPSI) resection.
methodsSimulated joint-preserving surgery was conducted using nine synthetic left knee bone models. Osteotomies adjacent to the knee joint were designed to evaluate the accuracy at the epiphysis side. The experiment was divided into three groups: free-hand, conventional PSI (CPSI), and fluoroscopically Calibrated PSI (FCPSI). Post-resection CT scans were quantitatively analyzed. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used.
resultFCPSI improved the resection accuracy significantly. The mean location accuracy is 2.66 mm for FCPSI compared to 6.36 mm (P < 0.001) for freehand resection and 4.58 mm (P = 0.012) for CPSI. The mean average distance is 1.27 mm compared to 2.99 mm (p < 0.001) and 2.11 mm (p = 0.049). The mean absolute angle is 2.16° compared to 8.50° (p < 0.001) and 5.54° (p = 0.021). The mean depth angle is 1.41° compared to 8.10° (p < 0.001) and 5.32° (p = 0.012). However, there were no significant differences in the front angle compared to the freehand resection group (P = 0.055) and CPSI (P = 0.599) group. The location accuracy observed with FCPSI was maintained at 4 mm, while CPSI and freehand resection exhibited a maximum deviation of 8 mm.
conclusionThe fluoroscopically calibrated 3D-printed patient-specific instruments improve the accuracy of osteotomy during bone tumor resection adjacent to joint joints compared to conventional PSI and freehand resection. In conclusion, this novel 3D-printed PSI offers significant accuracy improvement in joint preserving surgery with a minimal increase in time and design costs.
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.