SynthesisOpen heart2026
Impact of three-dimensional heart models on surgical planning and outcomes in congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reimagining the heart: the expanding landscape of advanced cardiovascular visualisation.Open heart · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCongenital heart disease surgery includes intricate structures that are perhaps hard to completely understand by traditional two-dimensional shapes. Individualised, centre-based three-dimensional (3D) heart models may enhance structural imaging and surgical preparation, while data on their medical effect continue to be unpredictable and uneven. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the impact of 3D heart simulations on surgical preparation and outcomes in congenital cardiac disease.
objectiveTo assess the successful outcomes of patient-centred 3D cardiac simulations in medical preparation, intraoperative execution and surgical results in patients experiencing operation for congenital cardiac disease.
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of patient-specific 3D heart models on surgical planning precision and preoperative outcomes in congenital heart disease surgery.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 standards and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024211985). PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched through March 2025 for comparative studies evaluating 3D-printed or virtual heart models versus conventional imaging. Outcomes were harmonised and pooled as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) or standardised MDs (SMDs) with 95% CIs using random-effects models.
results32 studies (n=1842) met inclusion criteria. The use of 3D models was associated with more frequent surgical plan modification (RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.67), reduced operative time (MD -18.4 min; 95% CI -27.6 to -9.2), lower postoperative complications (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98) and reduced re-operation (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.86). Hospital stay was shortened (MD: 1.8 days; 95% CI -3.0 to -0.6), and surgeon confidence improved (SMD 0.88; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15). The confidence of indication extended from modest to small because of non-experimental research and variability.
conclusionIndividualised-centred 3D heart stimulation improves structural imaging and medical preparation in congenital cardiac disease, chiefly for intricate lacerations and can increase preoperative competence, while statistics for conclusive diagnosis results continue to be restricted and mainly experiential. Upcoming potential, large-scale investigator-led research with consistent result events are required to ratify their medical success.
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.