Three-dimensional printing in orthopaedic surgery: a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three-dimensional printing (3DP) has become more frequently used in surgical specialties in recent years. These uses include pre-operative planning, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), and patient-specific implant production. The purpose of this review was to understand the current uses of 3DP in orthopaedic surgery, the geographical and temporal trends of its use, and its impact on peri-operative outcomes One-hundred and eight studies (N = 2328) were included, published between 2012 and 2018, with over half based in China. The most commonly used material was titanium. Three-dimensional printing was most commonly reported in trauma (N = 41) and oncology (N = 22). Pre-operative planning was the most common use of 3DP (N = 63), followed by final implants (N = 32) and PSI (N = 22). Take-home message: Overall, 3DP is becoming more common in orthopaedic surgery, with wide range of uses, particularly in complex cases. 3DP may also confer some important peri-operative benefits. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:430-441. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190024
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it