Three-dimensional-printing-guided preoperative planning of upper and lower extremity pediatric orthopedic surgeries: A systematic review of surgical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".