ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Artificial intelligence assisted preoperative planning and 3D-printing guiding frame for percutaneous screw reconstruction in periacetabular metastatic cancer patients.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of Percutaneous Stabilization for Pelvic Metastatic Bone Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2026Review
- Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedic Surgery: A Review of Perception, Decision, and Execution Systems.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedics: Clinical Performance, Limitations, and Translational Readiness-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Applications of 3D Printing and Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Management: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Artificial intelligence in orthopaedic oncology].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Worldwide research on 3D printing for cancer: a dual-method analysis of bibliometrics and stratified focused thematic.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Review
- Review
- Maximizing surgical precision in gracilis muscle reconstruction: anatomical Variants, advanced Imaging, and novel surgical strategies.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Review
- Advancements in Surgical Management of Periacetabular Metastases: Emphasizing Minimally Invasive Techniques.Cancers · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence and multimodal imaging in orthopaedics: from technological advances to clinical translation.Frontiers in medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The percutaneous screw reconstruction technique, known as the "Tripod Technique," has demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes in the management of metastatic periacetabular lesions, as evidenced by our prior investigations and corroborated by independent studies. Nevertheless, there is a steep learning curve in handling this technique, with possible complications such as intraarticular screw placement. Methods: Preoperative pelvic CT scans were acquired before surgery and utilized for the guiding frame design. A convolutional neural network model was trained with annotated data to identify the starting point and trajectory of each potential screw. A model boundary intersection detection technology was used to determine the optimal diameter and length of each screw. A non-rigid registration technology was matched with a prefabricated model of the body surface to design personalized anchoring skin pads. Finally, a polylactic acid-based guiding frame for intraoperative was custom-made with a 3D printer. Results: 12 patients underwent a guiding frame-assisted Tripod procedure for treatment of periacetabular metastatic lesions. An intraoperative CT scan was performed in all cases to confirm screw trajectories. Among 36 screws that were implanted, 26 screws were implanted as designed. The remaining ten screws drifted, but all remained within the intra-osseous conduit without any complications. The mean surgical time was 1.22 h with the guiding frame compared with 2.3 h without the guiding frame. Following the surgical procedure, a noteworthy enhancement in pain management, as evidenced by a reduction in scores on the visual analog scale ( Conclusion: This proof-of-concept investigation demonstrates that the amalgamation of AI-assisted surgical planning and additive manufacturing can improve surgical accuracy and shorten surgical duration. While access to this technology is currently constrained during its early stages of development, it is anticipated that these limitations will diminish as the potential of AI and additive manufacturing in facilitating complex orthopedic procedures becomes more evident, leading to a surge in interest and adoption of this approach.
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.