ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Three-dimensional assisted techniques vs. conventional fixation in complex periarticular fractures: a systematic review of outcomes and complications.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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.
- Efficacy of the use of 3D printing models in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures: a pilot randomized clinical trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Trial
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complex periarticular fractures are difficult to manage as anatomical reduction and stable fixation using conventional methods are challenging. Patient-specific three-dimensional (3D) printed implants and surgical guides have been developed with recent technical advances in 3D printing technology. This study systematically evaluates 3D printing-assisted methods, including patient-specific implants surgical guides, and preoperative bone models, against traditional fixation techniques for periarticular fractures by examining intraoperative duration, fracture reduction quality, radiographic results, and functional outcomes and complication rates. The research team carried out a literature search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for clinical comparative studies published during the period of 2015-2025. The selected research evaluated the effectiveness of patient-specific 3D-printed implants and surgical guides as well as preoperative planning tools. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed with ROBINS-I. Primary outcomes were collected and described. Seven studies (randomized controlled trials and cohort studies) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Operative time and blood loss were significantly shorter in most of the studies using 3D-assisted techniques. Fracture reduction accuracy was improved in several studies with smaller articular step-off and higher rate of anatomical reduction. Functional outcome was similar in most of the studies with modest improvement reported in a few. Reduction in complications was seen or a similar rate in the 3D group. One study found no significant benefit of 3D guidance over conventional treatment. 3D-assisted fixation shows promise in enhancing surgical precision and efficiency in complex periarticular fractures. While early results are favorable, further high-quality research is needed to validate its long-term clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness.
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.