ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
A Comprehensive Review of 3D Imaging and Printing in Proximal Humerus Fractures and Sequelae.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proximal humerus fractures are common and complex; despite advances, malunion, nonunion, and osteonecrosis remain concerns. Three-dimensional (3D) imaging/printing has emerged to improve classification, planning, and execution, especially in displaced patterns.
methodsMultiple databases have been searched using predefined terms ("proximal humerus fractures/sequelae", "three-dimensional", and "3D printing"). Inclusion criteria targeted human longitudinal studies (retrospective/prospective) on 3D-assisted fracture or sequela management; expert opinion, prior reviews, and letters to editors were excluded. Data extracted included the design, the level of evidence (LoE), the sample size, 3D application (diagnostic, planning, intraoperative, and combined), outcomes, follow-up, and complications.
resultsNineteen studies were included (fourteen fractures and five sequelae; 636 and 28 patients, respectively). In fractures, 3D imaging was used chiefly for preoperative planning (57.1%) and diagnostic support (35.7%); no intraoperative PSI was reported. In sequelae, intraoperative/PSI dominated (100%), with planning in 80% and combined uses in 80%. Fracture studies were mostly retrospective (50.0%; LoE III 78.6%), while all sequelae were LoE IV-V (60% of case reports). Standardized outcomes were reported in 42.1% of studies; follow-up was available in 42.1% (means ≈ 18 months). Complications occurred in 14.3% of fracture studies and in none of the sequelae.
conclusionsThree-dimensional printing is primarily applied for planning in fractures and intraoperative guidance in sequelae. While feasibility and potential perioperative benefits are evident, small heterogeneous cohorts and limited outcome reporting warrant larger prospective studies with standardized endpoints.
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.