ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Clinical study on precision repair of orbital fractures using 3D-printed orbital models assisting with absorbable plates.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- Managing Orbital Floor Fractures With Three-Dimensional (3D)-Printed Surgical Guides: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Patient-specific implants for orbital fracture surgery.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the surgical precision and postoperative safety of 3D-printed patient-specific orbital model-assisted absorbable plate reconstruction for orbital wall fractures.
methodsThe study included 94 orbital fracture patients divided into two groups: (1) 3D-assisted group (n = 44): treated with absorbable plate reconstruction assisted by 3D-printed orbital models.(2) Conventional group (n = 50): underwent standard absorbable plate reconstruction via traditional surgical approach. Postoperative evaluations at 6-11 months included standardized assessment of diplopia severity, ocular motility impairment, enophthalmos magnitude (Hertel exophthalmometry), and orbital volumetric restoration (CT-based segmentation analysis).
resultsAll patients achieved successful surgical outcomes with radiographic confirmation of anatomical reduction via postoperative CT. No cases exhibited postoperative complications including infection, implant displacement, or vision deterioration. Comparative analysis revealed both cohorts demonstrated statistically significant improvements in enophthalmos correction and orbital volume restoration compared to preoperative measurements (P < 0.001). The 3D-assisted group showed superior enophthalmos correction relative to conventional treatment (P = 0.014 < 0.05), along with greater orbital volume restoration (P = 0.008 < 0.05). Diplopia severity and ocular motility limitations were significantly ameliorated in both groups postoperatively (P < 0.001), with the 3D-assisted group achieving better diplopia resolution (P = 0.023 < 0.05) and ocular mobility restoration (P = 0.049 < 0.05) compared to the conventional group. Notably, the 3D-assisted procedure required significantly shorter operative duration than conventional methods (P < 0.001).
conclusionThe 3D-printed patient-specific orbital model-assisted absorbable plate reconstruction demonstrates superior clinical efficacy to conventional orbital fracture repair, providing precise anatomical restoration with enhanced enophthalmos correction and orbital volumetric accuracy. This technique significantly reduces operative time while achieving better functional outcomes in diplopia resolution and ocular motility recovery. The absence of implant-related complications confirms its procedural safety, establishing this modality as a valuable adjunct in orbital reconstruction surgery.
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.