ReviewEFORT open reviews2024
Characterisation of 3D-printed acetabular hip implants.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biodegradable (PLGA) Implants in Pediatric Trauma: A Brief Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Short-Term Outcomes of Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a 3D-Printed Acetabular Cup Manufactured by Directed Energy Deposition: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The role of musculoskeletal radiologists in emergency and trauma settings: current and emerging imaging modalities.BJR open · 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
Three-dimensional printing is a rapidly growing manufacturing method for orthopaedic implants and it is currently thriving in several other engineering industries. It enables the variation of implant design and the construction of complex structures which can be exploited in orthopaedics and other medical sectors. In this review, we develop the vocabulary to characterise 3D printing in orthopaedics from terms defined by industries employing 3D printing, and by fully examining a 3D-printed off-the-shelf acetabular cup (Fig. 1). This is a commonly used 3D-printed implant in orthopaedics, and it exhibits a range of prominent features brought about by 3D printing. The key features and defects of the porous and dense regions of the implant are clarified and discussed in depth to determine reliable definitions and a common understanding of characteristics of 3D printing between engineers and medical experts in orthopaedics. Despite the extensive list of terminology derived here, it is clear significant gaps exist in the knowledge of this field. Therefore, it is necessary for continued investigations of unused implants, but perhaps more significantly, examining those in vivo and retrieved to understand their long-term impact on patients and the effects of certain features (e.g. surface-adhered particles). Analyses of this kind will establish an understanding of 3D printing in orthopaedics and additionally it will help to update the regulatory approach to this new technology.
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.