ReviewJB & JS open access
The Use of 3D Printing as an Educational Tool in Orthopaedics.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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.
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Pediatric Orthopaedics: Cost Analysis and Emerging Applications.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) printing has proven to be effective in orthopaedic surgery, improving both surgical planning and outcomes. Despite its increasing use in surgical programs, reviews evaluating its educational impact are sparse. Therefore, the aim of this review was to provide educators with evidence-based findings on 3D printing's potential in training junior surgeons, as well as discuss its benefits in enhancing patient communication. Methods: A comprehensive search using PubMed and Web of Science databases was performed to identify articles related to orthopaedics, 3D printing, and education. After removing duplicates, 2,160 articles were screened, 152 underwent full-text review, and 50 met inclusion criteria. Articles discussed the impact of 3D-printed models on comprehension or surgical performance. Data on publication details, sample size, teaching focus, learning outcomes, costs, and conclusions were extracted. Learning effects in the control (didactic) and experimental (3DP) groups were compared. Results: In fracture management training, studies demonstrated significantly improved fracture classification accuracy, surgical performance, and interobserver classification agreement with 3D models compared with didactic learning and traditional imaging modalities. These benefits were particularly evident in cases of complex fractures and junior trainees. In arthroscopy, 3D-printed simulators improved procedural accuracy and were more cost-effective than virtual reality simulators and cadaveric laboratory results. Three-dimensionally printed simulators were also assessed for skills related to spine surgery, in which trainees demonstrated clear learning curve improvements for pedicle screw placement and osteotomy techniques, as well as a better understanding of vital paraspinal structures. The application of 3D printing in patient education was equally promising, as it facilitated the process of informed consent, ultimately promoting shared decision making. Conclusion: The use of 3D-printed models offers effective and customizable methods for developing essential surgical skills. Future research should focus on larger, more diverse study populations and should include long-term follow-up to better assess the impact of 3D printing on education and patient outcomes.
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.