Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40128051›Full record

ReviewMedicine2025

Current developments in 3D printing technology for orthopedic trauma: A review.

Kun Ling, Wenzhu Wang, Jie Liu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

3 authors.

Kun LingDepartment of Emergency Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Wenzhu WangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jie LiuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has emerged as a revolutionary tool in orthopedic trauma surgery, offering unprecedented opportunities for personalized patient care. This comprehensive review explores the current developments and applications of 3D printing in orthopedic trauma, highlighting its potential to address complex surgical challenges. We provide an in-depth analysis of various 3D printing technologies applicable to orthopedic surgery, including vat photopolymerization, material extrusion, powder bed fusion, and sheet lamination. The review examines the use of 3D printing in preoperative planning, surgical simulation, and the creation of patient-specific implants and surgical guides. We discuss applications across different anatomical regions, including upper limb, lower limb, and pelvic and spinal trauma. Evidence from recent studies demonstrates that 3D printing-assisted surgeries can lead to reduced operative times, decreased blood loss, improved fracture reduction quality, and potentially better clinical outcomes. This review synthesizes the latest research and clinical experiences, providing insights into the current state of 3D printing in orthopedic trauma and its future perspectives. As the technology continues to evolve, 3D printing holds promise for increasingly personalized and effective treatments in orthopedic trauma care, potentially transforming surgical practices and improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresPrinting, Three-DimensionalHumans

Identifiers

PMID40128051
PMCPMC11936578

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.