ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2025
A Hallux Valgus Surgical Planning Survey Using WBCT-based 3D Printing.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2025. 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.
- Hallux valgus: Advances in weightbearing CT imaging and three-dimensional assessment of first ray deformity.Skeletal radiology · 2026Review
- Use of 3D printed coracoid models for preoperative planning in the Latarjet procedure: a cross-sectional study.3D printing in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent literature highlights the importance of treating hallux valgus (HV) as a 3-dimensional (3D) deformity. Although 3D printing may enhance visualization of the multiplanar aspects of HV, its influence on surgical planning remains unclear. This study assessed changes in surgical plans when surgeons sequentially reviewed 2D radiographs, 3D weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT), and 3D-printed models, hypothesizing that 3D printing would have the greatest impact. Methods: A single HV case (a 40-year-old woman, intermetatarsal angle [IMA] 21 degrees, HV angle [HVA] 47 degrees) was evaluated by 30 surgeons in a masked, stepwise manner. Surgical plans were recorded at each stage. Surgeons rated the influence of WBCT and 3D printing using a 5-point Likert scale. A follow-up survey examined the effect of these technologies on correction amplitudes. Results: The participants were mostly early career surgeons (median age 35.5 years, 2 years in practice). WBCT was accessible to 43.3% and used in 30% of HV cases, whereas 3D printing was accessible to 23.3% and used in 6.6%. Changes in the treatment algorithm occurred in 30% of cases after WBCT and in 43.3% after 3D printing. Significant differences ( Discussion: Both WBCT and 3D printing influenced surgical planning, mostly explained by changes in first ray tarsometatarsal procedures. The rotational components (pronation and DMAA) were perceived as the most significantly affected. Future studies should explore cost-effectiveness, patient outcomes, and the utility of combining WBCT and 3D printing in other deformities requiring multiplanar corrections.
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.