Clinical outcomes and surgical applications of 3D-printed patient-specific implants for traumatic bone defects: a scoping review
5 affiliations
- 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1520 San Pablo St, Suite #2000, Los Angeles, CA 90033 USA
- 2Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada
- 3Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada
- 4Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC Canada
- 5Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University, Montréal, QC Canada
Abstract
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).
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-026-07064-z.
Related
- Military History and Post-traumatic Stress in Former American Football Players: Modeling Contributions to Clinical Outcomes
- Long‐Term Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Large Periapical Lesions Managed by Non‐Surgical and Surgical Endodontic Treatment: A Case Series
- Surgical Revision of Deep Brain Stimulation After Suboptimal Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis
- Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Pure Native Aortic Regurgitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Metastasis Pattern-Specific Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets in Gastric Cancer: From Surgical Specimens to Clinical Translation.
BibTeX
@article{slawaskaeng2026clinical,
title = {{Clinical outcomes and surgical applications of 3D-printed patient-specific implants for traumatic bone defects: a scoping review}},
author = {David Slawaska-Eng and Nicholas Garbuz and Matthew Mellon and James Yan and Emilie Sandman and Derek H. Rosenzweig and Paul A. Martineau},
journal = {Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s13018-026-07064-z},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-026-07064-z},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Clinical outcomes and surgical applications of 3D-printed patient-specific implants for traumatic bone defects: a scoping review
AU - David Slawaska-Eng
AU - Nicholas Garbuz
AU - Matthew Mellon
AU - James Yan
AU - Emilie Sandman
AU - Derek H. Rosenzweig
AU - Paul A. Martineau
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/29
JO - Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
DO - 10.1186/s13018-026-07064-z
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-026-07064-z
AB - 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). Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-026-07064-z.
SN - 1749-799X
ER -