SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Efficacy and safety of three-dimensional printing technology assisted open reduction and internal fixation versus conventional surgery in the treatment of acetabular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- A novel preoperative simulation approach for pediatric kidney transplantation to support donor-recipient size matching using dialysis fluid-enhanced CT imaging and 3D printing.Frontiers in transplantation · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy and biomechanical analysis of 3D-printed guide plate-assisted cannulated screw fixation compared with conventional fixation in complex acetabular fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 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
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the influence of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology on open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of acetabular fractures from current randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsA structured meta-analysis was conducted, and we searched online databases for published RCTs related to 3D printing and acetabular fracture, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Wan fang, and CNKI up to November 2024. The outcome data of intraoperative blood loss, operation time, hip function (Harris score), quality of fracture reduction (Matta score) and incidence of complications were extracted. Stata16.0 and RevMan5.3 were used for our meta-analysis.
results19 RCTs met our inclusion criteria and a total of 1046 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed significant difference in intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -274.65, 95% CI [-326.47, -222.83]), operation time (WMD = -53.26, 95% CI [-63.72, -42.80]), intraoperative fluoroscopy (WMD = -5.24, 95% CI [-6.57, -3.91]), instrumentation time (WMD = -35.31, 95% CI [-53.42, -17.21]), and post-surgery Matta score (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.09, 1.25]), incidence rate of complications (RR = 0.34, 95%CI [0.22, 0.52]). There is no significant difference in time from injury to operation (WMD=-0.06, 95%CI [-0.36, 0.24]) and Harris score (RR = 1.22, 95%CI [0.83, 1.79]) between two groups.
conclusion3D printing group showed reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time, faster instrumentation, less intraoperative fluoroscopy, better post-surgery reduction, and reduced incidence rate of complications. Therefore, based on existing research, ORIF guided by 3D printing technology should be a more effective method for treating acetabular fractures.
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.