SynthesisJournal of surgical oncology2025
Enhanced Functional and Surgical Outcomes With 3D Printing in Orthopedic Oncology: A Comparative Meta-Analysis Against Conventional Techniques.
Synthesis in Journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Enhanced Functional and Surgical Outcomes With 3D Printing in Orthopedic Oncology: A Comparative Meta-Analysis Against Conventional Techniques.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThree-dimensional printing (3DP) technology has increasingly gained attention in orthopedic oncology, where complex tumor resections and reconstructions demand high precision. 3DP enables the creation of patient-specific models and prostheses, which can improve postoperative quality of life for patients while assisting surgeons in preoperative planning, enhancing surgical accuracy, and improving outcomes in complex oncologic cases. Despite its potential, comprehensive data on the effectiveness and applications of 3DP in orthopedic oncology are limited. This paper assesses whether using 3DP compared to conventional techniques results in better outcomes in orthopedic oncology.
methodsA comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted until November 2024. Studies comparing 3D printing to conventional methods in orthopedic oncology and reporting outcomes such as operative time, blood loss, recurrence rates, or functional scores were included. Weighted means and meta-analyses were conducted to compare these outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was adjusted by using a random-effects model.
resultsFourteen studies comprising 478 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our primary findings were improved MSTS scores (mean difference [MD]: 2.17, p = 0.00) and decreased blood loss (MD: -69.8 mL, p = 0.00) in the 3D printing groups. There was no significant difference in operative time between 3D printing and conventional techniques (MD: -12.2 min, p = 0.32). Tumor recurrence rates did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk: 0.88, p = 0.50). Subgroup analyses indicated that 3D-printed implants showed the greatest benefit in reducing OR time and blood loss, with the other subgroups showing no significant difference in OR time, blood loss, or recurrence rate.
conclusionThe findings suggest that 3D printing in orthopedic oncology may enhance surgical precision by reducing OR time, intraoperative blood loss, and improving postoperative function, without affecting recurrence rates. Substantial heterogeneity limits confidence in these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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.