ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Functional personalization in digital manufacturing: a translational framework for patient-specific implants, arthroscopic locators, and therapeutic constructs.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional printing and digital manufacturing are increasingly used to produce patient-specific implants, surgical guides, arthroscopic locators, and therapeutic constructs. Yet the field is often described through a device-centered lens, emphasizing anatomical customization, printing accuracy, and material feasibility. This framing is becoming insufficient. Patient-specific manufacturing should not be understood merely as the fabrication of individualized objects, but as a clinically executable workflow that translates imaging data into surgical action, regenerative therapy, and outcome-informed iteration. This Perspective proposes that the next stage of 3D printing in medicine depends on three conceptual shifts: from anatomical matching to functional and procedural optimization; from passive printed products to interfaces that carry digital planning into the operating room; and from isolated fabrication success to clinically validated, regulation-aware, and feedback-driven manufacturing systems. Orthopedic applications are used as a representative context, with particular attention to 3D-printed arthroscopic locators for knee arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. This example illustrates how patient-specific design can move beyond open reconstruction into minimally invasive procedures, where accurate localization, reproducibility, and workflow compatibility are central. We further discuss therapeutic constructs, artificial intelligence, digital twins, point-of-care manufacturing, and translational barriers. Rather than offering another broad review of 3D printing applications, this Perspective proposes a framework for defining success in patient-specific digital manufacturing as the reliable conversion of patient data into safe, reproducible, and clinically meaningful intervention.
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.