ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Clinical application study of E3D-assisted design combined with personalized 3D printed guide system in the treatment of pelvic fractures.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study compares the clinical efficacy of E3D-assisted design combined with a personalized 3D-printed guiding system (experimental group) and traditional fluoroscopic percutaneous screw fixation (control group) for treating pelvic fractures, confirming the high accuracy of screw placement using the personalized 3D guiding system. Methods: This study selected 41 patients with pelvic ring injuries treated with minimally invasive percutaneous screw fixation from October 2022 to October 2025. A retrospective analysis was conducted, dividing the patients into two groups: the E3D-assisted design combined with a personalized 3D-printed guiding system group and the traditional C-arm fluoroscopy group. The statistical indicators included operation time, screw accuracy, number of fluoroscopies, intraoperative blood loss, screw types, injury types, fracture reduction quality, and postoperative functional recovery. Results: The operation time in the experimental group was shorter (experimental group: 53.05 ± 19.04 min vs. control group: 81.05 ± 24.68 min, Conclusion: Minimally invasive treatment of pelvic fractures using E3D-assisted design combined with a personalized 3D printed guiding system has advantages such as shorter surgery time, higher screw placement accuracy, and improved safety. It reduces the learning curve for clinicians, providing significant clinical application value.
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.