ReviewClinics in orthopedic surgery2025
Patient-Specific 3-Dimensional-Printed Orthopedic Implants and Surgical Devices Are Potential Alternatives to Conventional Technology But Require Additional Characterization.
Review in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-specific implants for joint-sparing reconstruction of segmental tibial and femoral defects : systematic literature review and introduction of a classification framework.Bone & joint research · 2026Pooled it
- Critical-sized bone defects: essential concepts for the higher orthopaedic examination.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Review
- Biodegradable Metals and Corrosion Control: Challenges, Limits and New Opportunities for Innovating in Orthopedic Fixations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Additive Manufacturing in Orthopaedic Trauma: Current Evidence and Applications.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Patient-Specific Lattice Implants for Segmental Femoral and Tibial Reconstruction (Part 2): CT-Based Personalization, Design Workflows and Validation-A Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Patient-Specific Lattice Implants for Segmental Femoral and Tibial Reconstruction (Part 1): Defect Patterns, Fixation Strategies and Reconstruction Options-A Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Custom 3D implants for managing bone defects-indications and lessons learned.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Review
- High-Accuracy reduction of comminuted diaphyseal femur fractures using on-site 3-D-printed guides.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- Optimal Plate Position for Biomechanical Stability in Medial Opening-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy: A Finite Element Analysis.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional assisted techniques vs. conventional fixation in complex periarticular fractures: a systematic review of outcomes and complications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) printing allows anatomical models, guides, and implants to be easily customized to individual patients. Three-dimensional-printed devices can be used for a number of purposes in the medical field, yet there is a lack of data on the implementation of 3D-printed patient-specific implants and surgical guides in orthopedics. The objective of this review of the literature was to summarize the implementation of 3D printing in orthopedic surgery and identify areas that require more investigation. Methods: PubMed and Scopus were used to perform a literature search. Articles that described 3D-printed patient-specific orthopedic implants or intraoperative guides were reviewed. Relevant articles were compiled and summarized to determine the role of personalized 3D-printed implants in orthopedic surgery. Results: A total of 58 papers were selected. Overall, 3D-printed implants and surgical guides were shown to be effective in the selected cases. Patients with bone tumors benefitted from custom 3D-printed implants, which allow aggressive resection while preserving the function and mechanical stability of the limb. Eighty-one percent of devices were made using titanium, and 48% of articles reported the use of 3D printing in oncology. Some reported adverse events including wound dehiscence, periprosthetic infection, dislocation, and sequelae of malignancy. Regulations surrounding the use of 3D-printed surgical devices are ambiguous. Conclusions: Three-dimensional-printed orthopedic implants and guides present an alternative to commercial devices, as they allow for customizability that is useful in cases of anatomic complexity. A variety of materials were surveyed across multiple subspecialties. Large controlled studies are necessary to compare patient-specific implants with the standard of care and evaluate their safety profiles over 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.