Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39135870›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024

Applications and accuracy of 3D-printed surgical guides in traumatology and orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Silvan Hess, Julius Husarek, Martin Müller, Sophie C Eberlein, Frank M Klenke, Andreas Hecker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. [Experimental study of patient-specific three-dimensional-printed drill guide-assisted CZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Application of patient-specific surgical guides in foot and ankle surgery.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
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.

Silvan HessDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital University of Bern Bern Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5145-7519
Julius HusarekDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital University of Bern Bern Switzerland.
Martin MüllerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital University of Bern Bern Switzerland.
Sophie C EberleinDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital University of Bern Bern Switzerland.
Frank M KlenkeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital University of Bern Bern Switzerland.
Andreas HeckerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital University of Bern Bern Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient-Specific Surgical Guides (PSSGs) are advocated for reducing radiation exposure, operation time and enhancing precision in surgery. However, existing accuracy assessments are limited to specific surgeries, leaving uncertainties about variations in accuracy across different anatomical sites, three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies and manufacturers (traditional vs. printed at the point of care). This study aimed to evaluate PSSGs accuracy in traumatology and orthopaedic surgery, considering anatomical regions, printing methods and manufacturers. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Studies were eligible if they (1) assessed the accuracy of PSSGs by comparing preoperative planning and postoperative results in at least two different planes (2) used either computer tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (3) covered the field of orthopaedic surgery or traumatology and (4) were available in English or German language. The 'Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies' was used for methodological quality assessment. Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, and ranges, are presented. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled mean absolute deviation between preoperative plan and postoperative result for each anatomic region (shoulder, hip, spine, and knee). Results: Of 4212 initially eligible studies, 33 were included in the final analysis (8 for shoulder, 5 for hip, 5 for spine, 14 for knee and 1 for trauma). Pooled mean deviation (95% confidence interval) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), total hip arthroplasty (THA) and spine surgery (pedicle screw placement during spondylodesis) were 1.82° (1.48, 2.15), 2.52° (1.9, 3.13), 3.49° (3.04, 3.93) and 2.67° (1.64, 3.69), respectively. Accuracy varied between TKA and THA and between TKA and TSA. Conclusion: Accuracy of PSSGs depends on the type of surgery but averages around 2-3° deviation from the plan. The use of PSSGs might be considered for selected complex cases. Level of Evidence: Level 3 (meta-analysis including Level 3 studies).

Indexed as

3D printingcomputer‐aided designcomputer‐assisted surgerymeta‐analysisorthopaedic proceduresorthopaedicsprecision medicinesystematic reviewtraumatology

Identifiers

PMID39135870
PMCPMC11317891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.