Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Scoping review reveals potential of patient-specific 3D-printed implants in traumatic bone defects, suggesting further research is needed.
Purpose Traumatic bone defects are complex injuries associated with prolonged disability and limited reconstructive options. Three-dimensional printed (3DP) patient-specific implants provide anatomically matched, mechanically tailored solutions. This review synthesizes current clinical evidence regarding their use, effectiveness, and safety in trauma-related bone defects. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to February 17, 2025. Human studies reporting clinical outcomes of custom 3DP implants for traumatic bone defects were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the MINORS tool. Owing to heterogeneity in anatomy, defect characteristics, adjunctive procedures, and outcome definitions, a meta-analysis was not performed. Results Twelve studies comprising 108 patients met inclusion criteria; most were retrospective, non-comparative case series (predominantly Level IV evidence). Titanium-based implants were most common (92 patients), followed by tantalum (9) and polyetheretherketone (5). Defect sites included the humerus, forearm, femur, tibia, and calcaneus. Union assessment methods varied, but confirmed union was frequently reported. For tibial defects, union was confirmed in 13/20 patients; four had indeterminate imaging and three declined a planned second-stage procedure. Functional outcomes generally improved. Reported complications were typically manageable, and no catastrophic implant failures were described, although follow-up duration was limited. Conclusion Current evidence suggests that patient-specific 3DP implants are a feasible reconstructive option for selected traumatic bone defects. However, evidence certainty remains very low, and prospective comparative studies with standardized reporting are required. Level of evidence IV (systematic review of primarily Level IV case series and retrospective studies).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Slawaska‐Eng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: