ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
Impact of introducing 3D printing-assisted surgery into clinical practice for traumatic pelvic and acetabular fractures.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How Can Technology Improve Acetabular and Pelvic Fractures Management in the Operating Room? A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Quantitative three-dimensional fracture mapping reveals subtype-specific morphology of acetabular roof column and wall fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy and biomechanical analysis of 3D-printed guide plate-assisted cannulated screw fixation compared with conventional fixation in complex acetabular fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Advancements in Role of 3D-Printed Implants for Complex Reconstructions in Polytrauma Cases: A Clinical Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- The impact of 3D printing in orthopedics and traumatology: Mapping the research landscape through bibliometrics and visualized analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- [Patient specific implants and instruments in orthopaedic trauma: 3D prints and implants in perlvic and hip fractures].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
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
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
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.