Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Patient-specific guides (PSGs) provide customized solutions and enhanced precision. However, the question remains: does&#xa0;clinical evidence support the added value of PSGs? This study critically appraises, summarizes, and compares the literature to assess the clinical value of PSGs in orthopedic surgery.</p> Materials and methods <p>PubMed and Embase were used to search for studies reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of PSGs with a control group for an orthopedic intervention, excluding knee arthroplasty. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The clinical value was expressed as patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, accuracy, surgery duration, blood loss, and radiation exposure. Relative and absolute differences were determined, and whether these were negative or positive for using PSGs.</p> Results <p>From 6310 studies, 27 RCTs were included, covering various interventions. The studies' heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Six (22.2%) of the included articles scored low risk of bias. Significant differences in the benefit of PSGs were reported across all included metrics: 32.2% in PROMs, 22.7% in complications, 69.8% in accuracy, 42.1% in surgery duration, 46.7% in blood loss, and 93.3% in radiation exposure. No significant negative differences were found in any of the studies.</p> Conclusion <p>PSGs generally show superior outcomes for accuracy and radiation exposure across multiple intervention types, while the reduction in complications was primarily significant in spinal fusion surgery. For PROMs, complications in other treatments, surgery duration, and blood loss, there may be clinical added value but future well-designed RCTs are needed to provide stronger evidence.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Clinical added value of 3D printed patient-specific guides in orthopedic surgery (excluding knee arthroplasty): a systematic review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月3日

查看全文
  • Nick Kampkuiper,
  • Romy ten Heggeler,
  • Jorm Nellensteijn,
  • Marjolein Brusse-Keizer,
  • Gabriëlle Tuijthof,
  • Maaike Koenrades,
  • Femke Schröder

摘要

Introduction

Patient-specific guides (PSGs) provide customized solutions and enhanced precision. However, the question remains: does clinical evidence support the added value of PSGs? This study critically appraises, summarizes, and compares the literature to assess the clinical value of PSGs in orthopedic surgery.

Materials and methods

PubMed and Embase were used to search for studies reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of PSGs with a control group for an orthopedic intervention, excluding knee arthroplasty. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The clinical value was expressed as patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, accuracy, surgery duration, blood loss, and radiation exposure. Relative and absolute differences were determined, and whether these were negative or positive for using PSGs.

Results

From 6310 studies, 27 RCTs were included, covering various interventions. The studies' heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Six (22.2%) of the included articles scored low risk of bias. Significant differences in the benefit of PSGs were reported across all included metrics: 32.2% in PROMs, 22.7% in complications, 69.8% in accuracy, 42.1% in surgery duration, 46.7% in blood loss, and 93.3% in radiation exposure. No significant negative differences were found in any of the studies.

Conclusion

PSGs generally show superior outcomes for accuracy and radiation exposure across multiple intervention types, while the reduction in complications was primarily significant in spinal fusion surgery. For PROMs, complications in other treatments, surgery duration, and blood loss, there may be clinical added value but future well-designed RCTs are needed to provide stronger evidence.