ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
A novel three-dimensional evaluation protocol to assess the consistency of critical screw angles between preoperative planning and 3d-printed patient-specific acetabular revision prostheses.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Screw fixation is pivotal for prosthetic stability. For 3D-printed customized acetabular revision prostheses designed for complex, large-scale bone defects, precise adherence to preoperative screw trajectory planning is critical. However, there remains a lack of standardized three-dimensional (3D) evaluation protocols to quantify intraoperative screw angular alignment fidelity relative to preoperative digital plans, hindering universal validation criteria. Methods: A total of 11 patients were stratified into two groups based on postoperative Harris Hip Scores and severe complication rates: the better outcome group and the regular outcome group. A 3D pelvic coordinate system was established using anatomical landmarks. Two biomechanically critical screws per prosthesis were selected to quantify 3D angular deviations between postoperative and preoperative plans. The efficacy of this method was compared with simulated anteroposterior radiograph-based 2D measurements. Inter- and intra-observer consistency (kappa statistics) were evaluated to assess reproducibility. Results: High inter-observer (κ = 0.88) and intra-observer (κ = 0.87, 0.75) agreement confirmed method reliability. While individual critical screw deviations showed no significant intergroup differences, the cumulative angular deviation of critical screws was significantly lower in the better outcome group (p = 0.0147). In contrast, 2D radiographic analysis failed to distinguish intergroup differences in cumulative deviations (p = 0.1489), demonstrating reduced clinical relevance. Conclusion: This 3D assessment protocol robustly correlates with clinical outcomes, providing a validated tool for evaluating preoperative-to-postoperative fidelity in customized acetabular revision prostheses. To our knowledge, this is the first CT-based 3D coordinate system study quantifying critical screw alignment accuracy in patient-specific prostheses, with clinical validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.