ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Three-Dimensional Printing in the Management of Orthopedic Sarcoma Patients: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orthopedic sarcomas present unique surgical challenges due to their anatomical complexity and the need to balance oncologic control with functional preservation. Three-dimensional (3D) printing has emerged as a promising technology to improve surgical precision through patient-specific planning and reconstruction. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and clinical applications of 3D printing in the management of orthopedic sarcomas. Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and institutional databases for studies published between 2016 and 2025. Twenty studies involving 296 patients with primary bone sarcomas treated using 3D-printed implants, resection guides, or hybrid constructs were included. The most common anatomical sites were the pelvis, sacrum, and long bones. The majority of studies reported high rates of negative surgical margins, with at least 14 of 18 studies achieving R0 resections in over 90% of cases. Functional outcomes were favorable, with pooled Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores averaging 78-80% of normal limb function, particularly in reconstructions of the ankle, femur, and tibia. The overall complication rate was 22%, with wound morbidity and infection being the most frequent adverse events. Comparative cohorts demonstrated improved surgical accuracy and lower complication rates in the 3D-assisted groups. While early outcomes are promising and support the utility of 3D printing in enhancing personalized oncologic surgery, further prospective studies with standardized outcome measures are needed to validate long-term benefits and inform wider clinical adoption.
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.