Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41744591›Full record

ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Patient-Specific Lattice Implants for Segmental Femoral and Tibial Reconstruction (Part 2): CT-Based Personalization, Design Workflows and Validation-A Review.

Mansoureh Rezapourian, Anooshe Sadat Mirhakimi, Tatevik Minasyan, Mahan Nematollahi, Irina Hussainova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mansoureh RezapourianDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0001-6650-6467
Anooshe Sadat MirhakimiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L7, Canada.
Tatevik MinasyanDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0003-2576-7040
Mahan NematollahiDepartment of Technical Physics, University of Eastern Finland, 70210 Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0009-0007-6647-8866
Irina HussainovaDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0003-3081-2491

Funding

Estonian Research Council MNHA23020Estonian Research Council PRG3028Estonian Research Council PRG643Estonian Research Council PSG1054
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-specific lattice implants (PSLIs) and modular porous scaffolds have emerged as promising solutions for treating diaphyseal segmental defects of the femur and tibia, particularly where conventional reconstruction methods fall short. This second part of our two-part review focuses on how current studies transform computed tomography (CT) and μCT datasets into architected lattice implants, as well as how these constructs are fabricated and numerically, mechanically, biologically, and clinically verified. We outline imaging pipelines, including Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) acquisition, segmentation, contralateral mirroring, and Hounsfield Units (HU)-density-elasticity mapping, and show how these choices impact finite element (FE) models and print-ready geometries. Next, lattice design strategies and mixed-material concepts are compared and linked to specific additive manufacturing routes in metals, polymers, and bioceramics, such as laser powder bed fusion (LPBF), electron beam melting (EBM), fused deposition modeling (FDM), material jetting, and extrusion-based bioprinting. Methodological overviews of linear-elastic models and homogenized finite element (FE) models, along with bench-top mechanical tests, in vitro cell assays, in vivo animal studies, and early clinical series, are utilized to categorize the studies into four pathways: simulation (S), mechanical (E_mech), biological (E_bio), and validation (V). Based on the reviewed literature, we establish a general workflow for CT implants. We identify common gaps in the process, observe insufficient reporting of imaging and modeling details, note a lack of data on fatigue and remodeling, and recognize the limited size of clinical cohorts. Additionally, we provide practical recommendations for developing more standardized and scalable planning pipelines. Part 1 of this two-part review studied defect patterns, anatomical location, and fixation strategies for patient-specific lattice implants used in femoral and tibial segmental reconstruction, with emphasis on how defect morphology and subregional anatomy influence construct selection and mechanical behavior. It established a defect- and fixation-centered review that provides the clinical and anatomical context for the workflow and validation analysis presented in Part 2.

Indexed as

3D-printed porous scaffoldsadditive manufacturingcomputed tomographyfemurfinite element analysisin vivo validationmechanical testingpatient-specific lattice implantsporous scaffoldssegmental bone defectstibia

Identifiers

PMID41744591
PMCPMC12938023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.