SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Comparing functional outcomes between 3D printed acetabular cups and traditional prosthetic implants in hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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.
- 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
- Finite Element Analysis of a 3D-Printed Acetabular Prosthesis for an Acetabular Defect According to the Paprosky Classification.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
objectiveThe primary research aim was to determine if the use of traditional or 3D printed prosthesis resulted in better functional outcome scores in hip arthroplasty.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted utilizing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, WebOfScience, and Cochrane Library, Google Scholar) were searched yielding 1117 article titles and abstracts. Rayyan.ai was used to detect duplicates (n = 246) and for manual screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included were controlled studies of any publication time that assessed Harris Hip Score (HHS) at baseline and twelve months. Six papers were sought for full text review of which three studies totaling 195 hips met final inclusion.
resultsMean HHS in the control group went from 38.15 (± 6.02) at baseline to 80.30 (± 4.79) at twelve months follow-up, while the 3D group saw a change from 37.81 (± 5.84) to 90.60 (± 4.49). Significant and large improvements between time points were seen within the control group [p = .02, Cohen's d = 8.57 (1.48, 15.56)] and 3D group [p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 9.18 (3.50, 14.86)]. The HHS score of the 3D group improved by 10.64 points more than the HHS score of the control group, which is a statistically insignificant (p = 0.89) amount.
conclusionGroup differences in pooled mean HHS scores at twelve months follow-up surpassed established minimum differences for clinical importance. High quality research should be further pursued to elucidate these findings.
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.