SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2024
Clinical applications of 3D printing in colorectal surgery: A systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Application of FDM 3D Printing in Surgery and Traumatology: A Systematic Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Pooled it
- Large Intestine Model Editor (LIME): Design and pilot evaluation of an editor for parameterized large intestine 3D models.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- The psychological impact of using 3D printing and imaging technology for patient education: a scoping review.3D printing in medicine · 2026Review
- A Personalized, 3D Printed Polymeric Device for the Prevention of Post-Myocardial Infarction Cardiac Remodeling.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- 3D-Printed Model for Surgical Planning in Diverticular Disease: A Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utilization of three-dimensional printing has grown rapidly within the field of surgery over recent years. Within the subspecialty of colorectal surgery, the technology has been used to create personalized anatomical models for preoperative planning, models for surgical training, and occasionally customized implantable devices and surgical instruments. We aim to provide a systematic review of the current literature discussing clinical applications of three-dimensional printing in colorectal surgery.
methodsFull-text studies published in English which described the application of 3D printing in pre-surgical planning, advanced surgical planning, and patient education within the field of colorectal surgery were included. Exclusion criteria were duplicate articles, review papers, studies exclusively dealing with surgical training and/or education, studies which used only virtual models, and studies which described colorectal cancer only as it pertained to other organs.
resultsEighteen studies were included in this review. There were two randomized controlled trials, one retrospective outcomes study, five case reports/series, one animal model, and nine technical notes/feasibility studies. There were three studies on advanced surgical planning/device manufacturing, six on pre-surgical planning, two on pelvic anatomy modeling, eight on various types of anatomy modeling, and one on patient education.
conclusionsWhile more studies with a higher level of evidence are needed, the findings of this review suggest many promising applications of three-dimensional printing within the field of colorectal surgery with the potential to improve patient outcomes and experiences.
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.