| Title |
Comparison of traditional surgery and surgery assisted by three dimensional printing technology in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Orthopaedics, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00264-017-3445-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yiting Lou, Leyi Cai, Chenggui Wang, Qian Tang, Tianlong Pan, Xiaoshan Guo, Jianshun Wang |
| Abstract |
This study was conducted to compare traditional surgery and surgery assisted by 3D printing technology in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures. In addition, we also investigated the effect of 3D printing technology on the communication between doctors and patients. Seventy two patients with tibial plateau fractures were enrolled in the study from April 2014 to October 2015. They were divided into two groups: 34 cases of 3D model group, 38 cases of traditional surgery group. The individual models were used to simulate the surgical procedures and carry out the surgery according to plan. Operation time, blood loss, and number of intra-operative fluoroscopy were recorded. Through the follow-up, the recovery of patients were observed. Besides, we designed questionnaires to verify the satisfaction for both surgeons and patients. The average operation time, average amount of blood loss, and number of intra-operative fluoroscopy for 3D model group was 85.2±0.9 minutes, 186.3± 5.5ml, 5.3± 0.2 times, and for traditional surgery group was 99.2±1.0 minutes, 216.2 ±6.9 ml,7.1 ± 0.2 times respectively. There was statistically significant difference between the traditional surgery group and 3D model group (P < 0.05). Via follow-up, we can see that the 3D printing group has a better clinical efficacy. The average score of the questionnaires to Patient and doctors were 7.3 ± 0.1 points and 8.5± 0.1 points respectively. This study suggested the clinical feasibility of 3D printing technology in treatment of tibial plateau fractures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 18 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,402,280
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#914
of 1,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,745
of 310,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#13
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,455 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.