ArticleScientific reports2025
Preclinical paired noninferiority study comparing in-house and commercially available 3D planning for corrective osteotomy of the distal radius.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-House 3D Planning for Corrective Osteotomy of the Distal Radius: Prospective Cohort Study With 1-Year Radiological and Clinical Follow-Up.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2026Article
- Corrective osteotomy for distal radius malunion using 3D-printed patient-specific guides and spacers: a retrospective comparative study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- A Survey on the Treatment of Extra-Articular Malunions of the Distal Radius.Journal of wrist surgery · 2026Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
3D surgical planning and patient-specific guide design are becoming an established approach in complex skeletal surgery. Traditionally, this is outsourced to commercial companies, but an alternative is to establish an in-house hospital team for the process. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of in-house design with a commercial company. Sixteen patients with extra-articular distal radius malunions requiring surgery were included. A hospital-based team and a surgeon working with an external company independently planned surgery and designed guides for each patient. Accuracy was evaluated by comparing simulated corrections with the planned corrections using 3D-printed bone models. The null hypothesis was that the in-house guides were inferior to the externally purchased ones. Noninferiority margins of 5° for volar tilt and 2 mm for ulnar variance were set. The mean volar tilt error difference between the two guides was 2.3°, and the mean ulnar variance error difference was 0.38 mm, both within the noninferiority limits. The dimensional accuracy of the printed guides before and after sterilization showed minimal variation (less than 0.3 mm). The results demonstrated that in-house surgical planning and guide design for distal radius corrective osteotomies can achieve comparable accuracy to external commercial companies.
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.