ReviewCureus2026
Role of 3D Printing in Preoperative Planning for Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) printing has emerged as a useful adjunct in spine surgery, particularly for preoperative planning, surgical rehearsal, education, patient communication, navigation template development, and selected patient-specific applications. This scoping review maps the available literature on the use of 3D printing in preoperative planning and related applications for spine surgery. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines using PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Databases were searched from inception through September 2025. Seventy-one unique articles were included: 12 comparative studies; 20 non-comparative clinical, technical, simulation, or education-focused studies; and 39 additional case reports or technical notes. The retrospective studies were further stratified into 20 non-comparative retrospective studies and 12 comparative retrospective studies evaluating 3D printing-assisted approaches against control or comparator approaches. Across the included literature, 3D printing was most commonly used for anatomical visualization, surgical rehearsal, screw trajectory planning, navigation template or drill guide development, patient education, trainee education, intraoperative reference, and selected custom implant or prosthetic applications. Several comparative studies reported favorable study-level findings associated with 3D printing, including reported improvements in screw placement accuracy or acceptable placement, operative duration, blood loss, fluoroscopy exposure, and complications; however, these outcomes were reported inconsistently and were not pooled quantitatively. Reported limitations included upfront production costs, prolonged preparation time, imaging and segmentation requirements, limited soft-tissue or biomechanical realism, and the need for specialized software, equipment, and personnel. Overall, 3D printing appears to be a promising adjunct for selected spine surgery applications, but current evidence remains largely retrospective, heterogeneous, and descriptive. Prospective, multicenter, controlled studies with standardized outcome measures, cost-effectiveness analyses, and longer follow-up are needed before 3D printing can be recommended as a standard component of preoperative planning in spine surgery.
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.