MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401051328 · doi:10.1177/18632521241264183

Three-dimensional-printing-guided preoperative planning of upper and lower extremity pediatric orthopedic surgeries: A systematic review of surgical outcomes

2024· review· en· W4401051328 on OpenAlex
Peter Joseph Mounsef, Rachad Aita, Khaled Skaik, Sofia Addab, Reggie C. Hamdy

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Children s Orthopaedics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryCochrane LibraryMEDLINESurgeryMedical physicsBlood lossMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Three-dimensional printing has evolved into a cost-effective and accessible tool. In orthopedic surgery, creating patient-specific anatomical models and instrumentation improves visualization and surgical accuracy. In pediatric orthopedics, three-dimensional printing reduces operating time, radiation exposure, and blood loss by enhancing surgical efficacy. This review compares outcomes of three-dimensional printing-assisted surgeries with conventional surgeries for upper and lower extremity pediatric surgeries. Methods: A complete search of medical literature up to August 2023, using Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Broad search terms included "pediatrics," "orthopedic," and "3D-printing." Eligible studies were assessed for intraoperative time, blood loss, and fluoroscopy exposure. Results: Out of 3299 initially identified articles, 14 articles met inclusion criteria. These studies included 409 pediatric patients, with ages averaging 9.51 years. The majority were retrospective studies (nine), with four prospective and one experimental study. Studies primarily utilized three-dimensional printing for navigation templates and implants. Results showed significant reductions in operative time, blood loss, and radiation exposure with three-dimensional printing. Complication occurrences were generally lower in three-dimensional printing surgeries, but there was no statistical significance. Conclusions: Three-dimensional printing is an emerging technology in the field of orthopedics, and it is primarily used for preoperative planning. For pediatric upper and lower extremity surgeries, three-dimensional printing leads to decreased operating room time, decreased intraoperative blood loss, and reduced radiation exposure. Other uses for three-dimensional printing include education, patient communication, the creation of patient-specific instrumentation and implants. Level of evidence: Level III.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it