scholarly journals 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery: a scoping review of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 807-819
Author(s):  
Ronald Man Yeung Wong ◽  
Pui Yan Wong ◽  
Chaoran Liu ◽  
Yik Lok Chung ◽  
Kwok Chuen Wong ◽  
...  

Aims The use of 3D printing has become increasingly popular and has been widely used in orthopaedic surgery. There has been a trend towards an increasing number of publications in this field, but existing literature incorporates limited high-quality studies, and there is a lack of reports on outcomes. The aim of this study was to perform a scoping review with Level I evidence on the application and effectiveness of 3D printing. Methods A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The keywords used for the search criteria were ((3d print*) OR (rapid prototyp*) OR (additive manufactur*)) AND (orthopaedic). The inclusion criteria were: 1) use of 3D printing in orthopaedics, 2) randomized controlled trials, and 3) studies with participants/patients. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration Tool and PEDro Score. Pooled analysis was performed. Results Overall, 21 studies were included in our study with a pooled total of 932 participants. Pooled analysis showed that operating time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), fluoroscopy times (p < 0.001), bone union time (p < 0.001), pain (p = 0.040), accuracy (p < 0.001), and functional scores (p < 0.001) were significantly improved with 3D printing compared to the control group. There were no significant differences in complications. Conclusion 3D printing is a rapidly developing field in orthopaedics. Our findings show that 3D printing is advantageous in terms of operating time, blood loss, fluoroscopy times, bone union time, pain, accuracy, and function. The use of 3D printing did not increase the risk of complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):807–819.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fan Yong Yong ◽  
deng bo ◽  
Hong Hai Nan ◽  
Zhu Zhong

Abstract PurposeThe efficacy and safety of topical fibrin sealant (FS) compared with tranexamic acid (TXA) to reduce blood loss after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is not clear. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical FS versus topical or intravenous TXA for treatment of primary THA.MethodWe searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies up to March 2020. The references included in articles were also checked for additional potentially-relevant studies. The language of publication was limited to English. The endpoints included the mean difference (MD) of blood loss, hemoglobin value, and odds ratios (ORs) of transfusion requirements and thrombotic events. Our meta-analysis was performed according to the Guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the PRISMA statement. The data of the included studies were analyzed using RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of four studies (two randomized controlled trials and two non-randomized controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that TXA administration led to significantly different outcomes in terms of transfusion rate (RD = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.23, -0.00), P = 0.05, I2 = 74%) and postoperative hemoglobin levels (WMD = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.74, -021), P = 0.0005, I2 = 3%) compared with topical application of FS in patients undergoing THA. No significant difference was seen in total calculated blood loss (WMD = -86.22, 95% CI (-99.13, -73.31), P < 0.00001, I2 = 96%) or complication rate (RR = 0.98, 95% CI (-99.13, -73.31), P = 0.45, I2 = 0%) between the two groups.ConclusionsTXA administration can effectively decrease the transfusion rate and result in higher postoperative hemoglobin levels without increasing the rate of infection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document