ReviewInternational orthopaedics2026
Three dimensional printing in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current evidence and future directions.
Review in International orthopaedics, 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
Abstract
backgroundAdditive manufacturing (3D printing) is increasingly used in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), including patient-specific instrumentation (PSI)/cutting guides, additively manufactured cementless implants, and fully patient-specific implant workflows. However, these applications differ substantially in purpose, evidence level, cost structure, and implementation burden; therefore, their clinical value should not be inferred from technical feasibility alone.
methodsThis narrative review was updated through December 2025 and was informed by a structured search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by reference screening. Search concepts combined UKA with 3D printing, additive manufacturing, PSI, patient-specific implants, custom implants, porous cementless fixation, osseointegration, navigation/robotics comparators, cost, and implementation. Study selection, eligibility criteria, evidence domains, outcomes, and anticipated sources of bias were predefined to improve reproducibility.
resultsRandomized trials and meta-analyses show that PSI in UKA does not consistently reduce alignment outliers or improve patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), with recurrent technical vulnerability at tibial registration, slope, and rotation. Cadaveric studies support feasibility but mainly report surrogate technical endpoints. For additively manufactured cementless UKA implants, implant-specific long-term cohort data suggest acceptable survivorship and clinically meaningful PROM improvement, but evidence remains implant-specific. Patient-specific implants may improve anatomic fit in selected morphologies, yet comparative studies have not demonstrated consistent short-term clinical or gait advantages over well-executed standard UKA.
conclusionsCurrent evidence supports selective, indication-driven adoption rather than routine use of 3D-enabled UKA technologies. PSI is best viewed as an execution aid for specific workflows or training contexts, porous cementless 3D-printed implants require implant-specific survivorship surveillance, and patient-specific implants should be reserved for carefully justified morphology-driven indications. Future research should prioritize standardized reporting, surgeon-volume stratification, long-term failure mechanisms, registry linkage, and cost-effectiveness across the complete care pathway.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42162413What 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.