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

Table 4 Outcome measures of articles reporting three-dimensional printed acetabular guides

Ref.	Outcomes
	Number of hips	Mean (range) follow-up in months	Cup size planning accuracy1	Postoperative cup inclination angle as °1	Postoperative cup anteversion angle as °1	Mean operating time in min1	HHS2	Intraoperative blood loss in mL1
Chen et al[25]	60	3	83.3% (93.3% < 2 mm) vs 73.3% (80% < 2 mm) (P = 0.532)	Absolute error: 2.6 (0-8.0) vs 5.0 (0-15.0) (P = 0.004)	Absolute error: 2.5 (0.3-7.3) vs 5.2 (0.1-14.0) (P < 0.001)	100.2 ± 13.4 vs 106.7 ± 24.4		290 ± 70.3 vs 251.7 ± 93.3
Kida et al[26]	23	0.5		39.37 ± 8.18	25.86 ± 7.87
Mishra et al[27]	36		18/18 vs 6/18	43.28 (38-46) vs 44.11 (34-50)	14.22 (8-27) vs 13.42 (5-36)	99.39 vs 92.33		519.44 vs 495.56
Tu et al[28]	12	72.42 (38–135)		42.6 ± 4.2	12.5 ± 3.6	280.8 ± 106.8	34.2 ± 3.7- 85.2 ± 4.2 (P < 0.001)	590.35 ± 112.47
Yan et al[29]	25	19.2 (14.4–45.6)		42.25 ± 4.55 vs 38.60 ± 3.25	17.30 ± 5.12 vs 15.01 ± 5.68	57.8 ± 3.73 vs 62.1 ± 4.19 (P = 0.008)	93.9 ± 2.87 vs 91.8 ± 3.69 (P = 0.009)	169 ± 34.1 vs 219 ± 38.0 (P = 0.002)

¹Intervention vs control.

²Harris hip score (preoperative–postoperative; intervention vs control; P value between postoperative values). P values are displayed for all studies that provided P values in their comparisons.