ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Application of 3D printing technology in preoperative planning and treatment of proximal humerus fractures: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of the use of 3D printing models in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures: a pilot randomized clinical trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Trial
- Advances in 3D Printing Applications for Personalized Orthopedic Surgery: From Anatomical Modeling to Patient-Specific Implants.Journal of clinical 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of 3D printing technology in preoperative planning and treatment of these fractures has shown promise in improving surgical efficiency, trauma, and patient outcomes. This study aims to demonstrate the advantages of applying 3D printing technology to the treatment of proximal humeral fractures by comparing cases selected for 3D printing with a control group (conventional surgery group), in order to further promote the application of 3D technology in a broader range of trauma treatments.
methodsThis study conducted the clinical data of 51 patients with proximal humeral fractures. Inclusion criteria encompassed patients diagnosed with Neer II and III type proximal humerus fractures. Among them, 24 patients underwent traditional surgery, while 27 patients underwent surgery with 3D printing technology support. Intraoperative parameters, functional outcomes, radiographic results at 6 months, and pain scores were collected and analyzed.
resultsThe 3D printing group demonstrated significantly reduced total surgery time compared to the traditional surgery group (P < 0.05). Implant placement accuracy was significantly higher in the 3D printing group compared to the traditional surgery group (P < 0.05). Functional outcomes at 6 months favored the 3D printing group, with higher Constant-Murley Score and lower Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) Score compared to the traditional surgery group (P < 0.05). Additionally, the 3D printing group showed a significantly lower prevalence of heterotopic ossification compared to the traditional surgery group (P < 0.05). Preoperative and early postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the 3D printing group compared to the traditional surgery group (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe integration of 3D printing technology into the preoperative planning and treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures demonstrated significant advantages in surgical efficiency, functional outcomes, radiographic prognosis, and pain management.
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.