ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2026
Additive Manufacturing in Orthopaedic Trauma: Current Evidence and Applications.
Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2026. 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
Additive manufacturing also known as three-dimensional printing (3D printing), provided the ability to produce precise three-dimensional structures, representing a rapidly growing field in Orthopaedics. Its clinical value has been attributed to the ability to create complex three dimensional objects with relative ease and at low cost. However, the available evidence regarding its applications in trauma was heterogeneous. This narrative review aimed to analyze the clinical applications of 3D printing in traumatology. Additionally, the research gaps that emerged in our literature search were underscored. Four application domains were selected based on their prevalence in the screened literature and relative level of clinical implementation within orthopaedic traumatology, including (1) 3D-printed anatomical models, (2) patient-specific surgical guides (PSSGs), (3) 3D-printed implants, and (4) temporary 3D-printed external fixation devices. 3D-printed anatomical models were found to help in reducing operative time, estimated blood loss, and the intraoperative radiation exposure. The use of PSSGs was shown to improve intraoperative accuracy and to provide a basis for consistent, accurate, and reproducible outcomes. However, their implementation was hindered by preparation time, the need for stable anatomical landmarks, and reduced accuracy due to potential soft-tissue injury and swelling. In contrast, 3D-printed implants and external fixation devices constituted promising but less extensively studied applications of 3D printing in trauma. The production of customized implants and external fixators, as suggested by the studies available, was deemed feasible, with comparable mechanical properties and significantly lower cost. Larger multicenter studies are required to support and validate these findings. Overall, based on the available evidence, 3D-printed anatomical models and patient-specific surgical guides demonstrate the highest level of clinical applicability, primarily in preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance.
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.