SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Efficacy and safety of 3D-printed artificial vertebral bodies for spinal tumor resection and reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of 3D printed artificial vertebral body in spinal reconstruction after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal tumors.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang Database, and Wei Pu Database by computer to collect controlled clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of 3D printed artificial vertebral body and titanium mesh cages (TMCs) in the treatment of spinal tumors after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) from database establishment to February 2024.
resultsA total of 10 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled study with a total of 489 patients were included in this study, including 234 patients in the 3D group and 255 patients in the TMC group. The 3D group had lower intraoperative blood loss than the TMC group [mean difference (MD) = - 1.47, 95% CI (- 2.38, -0.55), P = 0.002] and operation time was shorter than that of the TMC group [MD = -0.65, 95% CI (- 1.23, - 0.07), P = 0.03]. Early postoperative JOA scores improved more significantly in the TMC group [MD = 0.50, 95% CI (0.18, 0.82), P = 0.002].
conclusionThe 3D printing group demonstrated advantages in early postoperative pain relief (VAS) and spinal sequence maintenance (loss of Cobb angle), while there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in Frankel grading and neurological improvement rates. Notably, the traditional titanium mesh group showed more significant improvements in early postoperative JOA scores.
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.