ArticleJTCVS techniques2025
Custom-made dynamic 3-dimensional-printed prostheses for chest wall reconstruction: A multicenter study.
Article in JTCVS techniques, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An integrated digital-to-surgical framework for patient-specific chest wall resection and reconstruction using 3D-printed titanium implants: proof-of-concept study.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of XFEM and Phase Field Approaches for Fracture Prediction in Flexible Ti-6Al-4V Thoracic Implants.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Current treatment strategies and prospects for chest wall defect repair and reconstruction.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the technical feasibility and surgical safety of dynamic, 3-dimensional (3D) customized prostheses for complex chest wall reconstruction across a multicenter experience. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, descriptive observational study involving 51 patients from 5 hospitals in Spain who underwent chest wall reconstruction via a custom-designed, spring-like 3D-printed titanium implants between 2016 and 2023. Data collected included surgical indication (oncologic, traumatic, or infectious), patient demographics, prosthesis type, operative time, hospital stay, complications, and follow-up outcomes. Results: Indications included 35 oncologic, 11 traumatic, 3 infectious, and 2 functional cases (winged scapula). A total of 51 prostheses were implanted, including bilateral and unilateral sternocostal, costal, costovertebral, sternoclavicular, and scapulothoracic reconstructions. The mean operative time was 270 minutes (range, 75-720 minutes), and median follow-up was 2.5 years (range, 3 months to 8 years). Four minor complications were recorded, none requiring implant removal. No cases of prosthesis failure occurred independently of patient death. Conclusions: Dynamic 3D-customized prostheses provide a structurally stable yet flexible alternative to conventional rigid implants for chest wall reconstruction. Their spring-like geometry allows anatomical adaptation and facilitates intraoperative placement, contributing to safe and reproducible reconstruction in selected cases, with favorable medium-term outcomes. This multicenter experience suggests they may be a feasible and safe option in anatomically complex or functionally demanding thoracic reconstructions.
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.