Comparison of the feasibility of 3D printing technology in the treatment of pelvic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsand prospective comparative studies.

Abstract

The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the influence of 3D printing technology on the open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of pelvic fractures from current randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies. In this meta-analysis, we conducted electronic searches of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science and CNKI up to February 2020. We collected clinical controlled trials using 3D printing-assisted surgery and traditional techniques to assist in pelvic fractures, evaluating the quality of the included studies and extracting data. The data of operation time, blood loss, follow-up function (Majeed function score), quality of fracture reduction (Matta score) and complications (infection, screw loosening, pelvic instability, venous thromboembolism, sacral nerve injury) were extracted. Stata 12.0 software was used for our meta-analysis. Five RCTs and 2 prospective comparative studies met our inclusion criteria with 174 patients in the 3D printing group and 174 patients in the conventional group. There were significant differences in operation time [SMD = - 2.03], intraoperative blood loss [SMD = - 1.66] and postoperative complications [RR = 0.17] between the 3D group and conventional group. And the excellent and good rate of pelvic fracture reduction in the 3D group [RR = 1.32], the excellent and good rate of pelvic function [RR = 1.29] was superior to the conventional group. The 3D group showed shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, less complications, better quality of fracture reduction and fast function recovery. Therefore, compared with conventional ORIF, ORIF assisted by 3D printing technology should be a more appropriate treatment of pelvic fractures.