ArticleHeliyon2024
Conception and validation of A 3d printed learning model of supra condylar fracture of children.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Decoding triple negative breast cancer bone metastasis: from 3D bioprinted models to clinical translation.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The supracondylar fracture of the child is a common fracture. Its physiology, physiopathology and treatment use periosteum. As far as we know, there is no 3D printed model of this typical fracture in children with periosteum. Materials and methods: The basis for the paediatric elbow model was a 3D scan of a four-year-old girl. Once the data had been extracted, the models were constructed using 3D Slicer®, Autodesk fusion 360® and Ultimaker Cura® software's. The Creality 3D Ender 6 SE Printer® used PLA filaments to print bone and TPU for periosteum. Printing took place at the University Hospital and the steps were modelled by hand. 3D printed bones and 3D printed periosteum were manually assembled. Participants: Expert validation with twelve paediatric orthopaedic surgeons took place in three University hospitals of the North of France. Results: Four Lagrange and Rigault 3D printed models of supracondylar fractures with periosteum were obtained with 200 h of design, printing and manual assembly based on a four-year-old elbow. According to the paediatric orthopaedic surgery experts, the size of the model is very good, but the model itself is of little interest compared to the information provided by the reconstruction of a 3D scanner. In total, with 9 out of 12 questions scoring higher than 8/10, the model was considered to be a good model for informing parents and teaching students. Conclusions: This study details the design of the first 3D-printed supra condylar fracture model in children with a full-size physeal and periosteum. The model has been validated by paediatric orthopaedic surgery experts.
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.