Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38994439›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024

Impact of introducing 3D printing-assisted surgery into clinical practice for traumatic pelvic and acetabular fractures.

Vikaesh Moorthy, Ivan Tjun Huat Chua, Sze Ern Tan, Anand Pillai, Bryan Yijia Tan, Michael Gui Jie Yam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

6 authors.

Vikaesh MoorthyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Ivan Tjun Huat ChuaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Sze Ern TanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Anand PillaiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Bryan Yijia TanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Woodlands Health Campus, Singapore.
Michael Gui Jie YamDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Given the novelty of three-dimensional (3D) printing-assisted fracture surgery in orthopaedics, surgeon familiarity is limited and learning curve is high. As such, it is unclear how the introduction of 3D printing into clinical practice for pelvic and acetabular fracture surgery would impact perioperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of introducing 3D printing-assisted surgery on perioperative outcomes for traumatic pelvic and acetabular fractures. Methods: We retrospectively identified consecutive patients who underwent surgical fixation of traumatic pelvic and acetabular fractures from 2018 to 2022 at a single tertiary hospital. The patients included in the study were divided into two groups: (1) 3D printing-assisted surgery and (2) conventional surgery. Baseline demographics and perioperative outcomes of total surgical duration, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, number fluoroscopy images, fluoroscopy duration and postoperative disposition were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results: In total, 26 patients were included in the present study, with 3D printing-assisted surgery being used in 34.6 % (n = 9) of cases. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics or fracture type between the 3D printing group and conventional group. As compared to patients who underwent conventional surgery, those that underwent 3D printing-assisted surgery had, on average, shorter surgical duration (299.8 ± 88.2 vs 309.1 ± 143.1 min), lesser estimated blood loss (706.3 ± 330.0 vs 800.0 ± 584.2 ml), lower transfusion rates (50.0 % vs 52.9 %), lower number of intraoperative fluoroscopy images (62.8 ± 74.5 vs 71.6 ± 47.9 images) and shorter fluoroscopy duration (235.0 ± 79.2 vs 242.3 ± 83.5 min), although statistical significance was not achieved. None of the patients in the present study developed surgical complications postoperatively. Conclusion: The introduction of 3D printing-assisted surgery in clinical practice for pelvic and acetabular fractures is a safe and viable adjunct in pelvic and acetabular surgery, achieving comparable perioperative outcomes in the initial phase.

Indexed as

3D-printing assisted surgeryAcetabulum fracturePelvis fracturePerioperative outcomesTrauma

Identifiers

PMID38994439
PMCPMC11233788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.