ReviewCureus2025
Emerging Evidence for Three-Dimensional (3D)-Printed Guide Templates in Cervical Spine Trauma Surgery: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical spine fractures are complex injuries that require precise surgical fixation. Conventional freehand pedicle screw placement is associated with prolonged operative time, higher blood loss, and repeated fluoroscopy. Three-dimensional (3D) printing (3DP) offers customized patient-specific templates that may improve safety and efficiency in such cases. This scoping review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for comparative studies evaluating 3DP-assisted surgery versus conventional methods in cervical spine fractures. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed study quality using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. A random-effects model was used for pooled analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic. Four retrospective comparative studies involving 189 patients were included. Compared with conventional freehand techniques, 3DP-assisted surgery significantly reduced operative time (mean difference: -32.3 minutes; 95%CI -38.6 to -26.0), intraoperative blood loss (mean difference: -121.6 ml; 95%CI -149.0 to -94.1), and fluoroscopy frequency (mean difference: -3.8 shots; 95%CI -4.6 to -2.9). Pain scores at 12 months were also slightly lower in the 3DP group. Heterogeneity ranged from low to moderate, and no major publication bias was identified. 3DP-assisted cervical spine surgery appears to improve operative efficiency and reduce intraoperative burden compared with conventional techniques. These findings represent early, technology-focused evidence supporting the feasibility of 3D-printed guide templates in cervical spine trauma. Given the heterogeneity of injury patterns and anatomical regions, the results should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive.
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.