Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39628649›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024

Modular design workflow for 3D printable bioresorbable patient-specific bone scaffolds: extended features and clinical validation.

Buddhi Herath, Markus Laubach, Sinduja Suresh, Beat Schmutz, J Paige Little, Prasad K D V Yarlagadda, Heide Delbrück, Frank Hildebrand, Dietmar W Hutmacher, Marie-Luise Wille

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Buddhi HerathAustralian Research Council Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Markus LaubachAustralian Research Council Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Sinduja SureshAustralian Research Council Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Beat SchmutzAustralian Research Council Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
J Paige LittleAustralian Research Council Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Prasad K D V YarlagaddaAustralian Research Council Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Heide DelbrückDepartment of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Frank HildebrandDepartment of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Dietmar W Hutmacher *Australian Research Council Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Marie-Luise Wille *Australian Research Council Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A previously in-house developed patient-specific scaffold design workflow was extended with new features to overcome several limitations and to broaden its adaptability to diverse bone defects, thereby enhancing its fit for routine clinical use. It was applied to three clinical cases for further validation. A virtual surgical resection tool was developed to remove regions of the bone defect models. The minor cavity fill module enabled the generation of scaffold designs with smooth external surfaces and the segmental defect fill module allowed a versatile method to fill a segmental defect cavity. The boundary representation method based surgical approach module in the original workflow was redeveloped to use functional representation, eliminating previously seen resolution dependant artefacts. Lastly, a method to overlay the scaffold designs on computed tomography images of the defect for design verification by the surgeon was introduced. The extended workflow was applied to two ongoing clinical case studies of a complex bilateral femoral defect and a humerus defect, and also to a case of a large volume craniomaxillofacial defect. It was able to successfully generate scaffolds without any obstructions to their surgical insertion which was verified by digital examination as well as using physical 3D printed models. All produced surface meshes were free from 3D printing mesh errors. The scaffolds designed for the ongoing cases were 3D printed and successfully surgically implanted, providing confidence in the extended modular workflow's ability to be applied to a broad range of diverse clinical cases.

Indexed as

additive manufacturinggenerative designparametric designscaffold design workflowscaffold-guided bone regeneration

Identifiers

PMID39628649
PMCPMC11611564

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.