Intraoperative application of three-dimensional printed guides in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review

Table 3 Outcome measures of articles reporting three-dimensional printed models

Ref.	Outcomes
	Number of hips	Mean (range) follow-up in months	Cup size planning accuracy1	Mean operating time in min	HHS2	Complications1	Vertical distance in mm3	Horizontal distance in mm3
Dos Santos-Vaquinhas et al[22]	45	32.4 (12-60)	19/21 vs 14/24 (P = 0.045)	156.15 ± 43.03 vs 187.5 ± 54.38 (P = 0.045)	57.15 ± 15.41–83.74 ± 8.49 vs 53.12 ± 15.62–75.59 ± 11.46 (P = 0.019)	Intraoperative 4/21 vs 10/24 (P = 0.003)	0.7 [(-5.0)-15] vs -3.3 [(-32.0)-8.0] (P = 0.102)	1.2 [(-9.0)-7.0)] vs 1.0 [(-8.0)-15.0] (P = 0.884)
Xu et al[23]	14	23.1 ± 5.9 (14-30)	10/14 (3/14 < 2 mm diff) vs 1/14 (5/14 < 2 mm diff)		37.7 ± 6.8–83.3 ± 5.7 (P < 0.01)		18.8 (11.5-25.8)	21.7 (15.0-31.2)
Zhang et al[24]	21	18.35 ± 6.86 (12-36)	15/17 (ICC = 0.930)		38.33 ± 6.07–88.61 ± 3.44 (P < 0.05)		40.48 ± 8.42–15.12 ± 1.25 (P < 0.05)	41.49 ± 5.17–32.49 ± 2.83 (P < 0.05)

¹Intervention vs control.

²Harris hip score (preoperative–postoperative; intervention vs control; P value between postoperative values for intervention vs control or preoperative-postoperative when no control group was used).

³Distance to center of rotation of the hip (preoperative–postoperative; intervention vs control).

ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficient.