ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025
3D-Printed Cutting Guide in Oncological Pelvic Surgery: A Case Report and Proof of Concept Validation of Cutting Guide Accuracy.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In recent years, numerous hospitals have established in-house three-dimensional (3D) printing centers, enabling health-care facilities to leverage the transformative capabilities of additive manufacturing technology on their premises. With this emerging opportunity arises a necessity to undertake a thorough assessment of the manufactured tools employed in clinical practice. The objectives of this article are to describe the pathway of in-house printing and evaluate the accuracy of 3D-printed specific instruments. Case Report: A case is reported along with the workflow for creating a patient model and cutting guide. The patient is a 76-year-old Caucasian woman with bone metastasis from a known renal cancer located in the pelvis. The model was used preoperatively, while the guide was used during surgery. Following this, the guide underwent computed tomography (CT) scanning, and a 3D digital model was reconstructed. Two dimensions, labeled A and B, were established. We compared pre-operative measurements, respectively, with measurements from the printed physical guide and from the rescanned post-operative digital model. Finally, A and B were measured on the bone defect on the patient's post-operative CT. Variation in axis A value between the mean of the first two groups was 0.5 mm and in axis B was 0.7 mm. On the printed physical guide, the mean of axis A was 73.5 mm, and the mean of axis B was 71.8 mm. Variation in A value between the mean of this group and the pre-operative was 1.7 mm and in B value was 0.5 mm. Conclusion: The workflow used at our hospital was described with an example of how to evaluate the accuracy of in-house 3D printing. Results showed high accuracy of the printing method, a reliable correlation between desired and actual outcomes, and a short lead time.
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.