SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Clinical and functional outcomes of upper extremity 3D-printed immobilization devices compared to traditional methods: a systematic review with limited 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFractures are a common cause of emergency department visits, and immobilization choice affects not only fracture healing but also comfort, hygiene, mobility, and quality of life. Conventional casting remains standard but is associated with limitations, including bulk, discomfort, and poor water tolerance. 3-Dimensional (3D)-printed, patient-specific immobilization may improve ventilation and functional tolerance while maintaining stability, but clinical evidence is still emerging and heterogeneous. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current clinical evidence on 3D-printed immobilization technologies versus traditional standard methods for fracture management in both pediatric and adult patients with respect to fracture healing, stability, pain, and functional recovery.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed from database inception until November 2025 on the topic of evaluating 3D-printed technology to create casts, splints, or orthoses for upper-extremity fracture immobilization. Due to heterogeneity in design, interventions, and outcome reporting, results were synthesized narratively.
resultsOf 828 articles retrieved from the initial search, 581 studies were included for screening after removing duplicate articles, and underwent title and abstract screening, with 32 full-text studies assessed for eligibility. Thirteen studies met full inclusion criteria, while 19 studies were excluded. Twelve (n = 456) were included in the result analysis as they all focused on upper-extremity fractures, all of which had a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Fracture union was reported at or near 100% across studies. Patient satisfaction generally favored 3D-printed immobilization (10/11 studies), with a non-significant large, pooled effect (Hedges' g = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.21-1.88; p = 0.085; I
conclusion3D-printed immobilization devices show comparable fracture healing and improved patient satisfaction and skin tolerability compared with conventional casting, with early functional advantages that are not consistently sustained long term. However, the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, short follow-up, moderate-to-high risk of bias, and substantial heterogeneity, resulting in low-to-moderate certainty. Larger, high-quality randomized trials with longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings and inform clinical recommendations.
trial registrationProtocol registered prospectively in an international systematic review registry (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD420251182244).
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.