header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 12 | Pages 807 - 819
1 Dec 2021
Wong RMY Wong PY Liu C Chung YL Wong KC Tso CY Chow SK Cheung W Yung PS Chui CS Law SW

Aims. The use of 3D printing has become increasingly popular and has been widely used in orthopaedic surgery. There has been a trend towards an increasing number of publications in this field, but existing literature incorporates limited high-quality studies, and there is a lack of reports on outcomes. The aim of this study was to perform a scoping review with Level I evidence on the application and effectiveness of 3D printing. Methods. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The keywords used for the search criteria were ((3d print*) OR (rapid prototyp*) OR (additive manufactur*)) AND (orthopaedic). The inclusion criteria were: 1) use of 3D printing in orthopaedics, 2) randomized controlled trials, and 3) studies with participants/patients. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration Tool and PEDro Score. Pooled analysis was performed. Results. Overall, 21 studies were included in our study with a pooled total of 932 participants. Pooled analysis showed that operating time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), fluoroscopy times (p < 0.001), bone union time (p < 0.001), pain (p = 0.040), accuracy (p < 0.001), and functional scores (p < 0.001) were significantly improved with 3D printing compared to the control group. There were no significant differences in complications. Conclusion. 3D printing is a rapidly developing field in orthopaedics. Our findings show that 3D printing is advantageous in terms of operating time, blood loss, fluoroscopy times, bone union time, pain, accuracy, and function. The use of 3D printing did not increase the risk of complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):807–819


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 7 | Pages 423 - 432
6 Jul 2023
Xie H Wang N He H Yang Z Wu J Yang T Wang Y

Aims

Previous studies have suggested that selenium as a trace element is involved in bone health, but findings related to the specific effect of selenium on bone health remain inconclusive. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis by including all the relevant studies to elucidate the association between selenium status (dietary intake or serum selenium) and bone health indicators (bone mineral density (BMD), osteoporosis (OP), or fracture).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to retrieve relevant articles published before 15 November 2022. Studies focusing on the correlation between selenium and BMD, OP, or fracture were included. Effect sizes included regression coefficient (β), weighted mean difference (WMD), and odds ratio (OR). According to heterogeneity, the fixed-effect or random-effect model was used to assess the association between selenium and bone health.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 10 | Pages 709 - 718
1 Oct 2020
Raina DB Liu Y Jacobson OLP Tanner KE Tägil M Lidgren L

Bone is a dynamic tissue with a quarter of the trabecular and a fifth of the cortical bone being replaced continuously each year in a complex process that continues throughout an individual’s lifetime. Bone has an important role in homeostasis of minerals with non-stoichiometric hydroxyapatite bone mineral forming the inorganic phase of bone. Due to its crystal structure and chemistry, hydroxyapatite (HA) and related apatites have a remarkable ability to bind molecules. This review article describes the accretion of trace elements in bone mineral giving a historical perspective. Implanted HA particles of synthetic origin have proved to be an efficient recruiting moiety for systemically circulating drugs which can locally biomodulate the material and lead to a therapeutic effect. Bone mineral and apatite however also act as a waste dump for trace elements and drugs, which significantly affects the environment and human health.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(10):709–718.