ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
Using additive manufacturing for craniocervical reconstruction in traditionally challenging cases.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retrospective case series. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of using 3D printed implants in upper cervical spine and occipitocervical junction surgery. C2 primary tumor patients who required axial en bloc resection and other patients who required partial bone decompression using customized 3D printed implants or fixation devices for surgery were included. Evaluate the stability and surgical outcomes of 3D printed implants through perioperative and follow-up period. Five tumor patients underwent reconstruction using customized 3D printed artificial vertebral bodies, while another five patients with atlantoaxial joint dislocation underwent reduction and decompression using customized 3D printed internal fixation devices. The postoperative imaging results showed that the 3D printed structures had good immediate stability and had no signs of displacement or subsidence. Follow up showed that all five cases of vertebral body reconstruction had achieved fusion. Only one patient died one month after surgery due to infection and respiratory difficulties. Other patients showed excellent improvement in neurological function in follow up. The use of 3D printed implants in surgery involving the occipitocervical area is a feasible and reliable alternative choice. It is a valuable attempt for complex atlantoaxial dislocation that cannot be treated with conventional instruments. 3D printed implants can improve the safety and accuracy of surgery, provide good immediate stability, have a low incidence of subsidence, fewer related complications during the follow-up period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39586929What 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.