In Scheuermann 2024 et al., on 3D-printed reduction guides for tibial fractures, which statement best describes the application of precontoured plates?
A. Only applied in distal fractures
B. Required significant intraoperative bending
C. Precontoured to 3D-printed models and fit easily
D. Were templated based on standard measurements
E. Were not used in this study
Answer: Precontoured to 3D-printed models and fit easily
Explanation: Plates were shaped to mirror-image models and were easily applied.
In Scheuermann 2024 et al., on 3D-printed reduction guides for tibial fractures, what was the most common plane for angular pin-guide placement error?
A. Frontal
B. Sagittal
C. Axial
D. Oblique
E. Transverse
Answer: Axial
Explanation: Axial plane showed the highest angular discrepancies for both proximal and distal pin guides.
In Scheuermann 2024 et al., on 3D-printed reduction guides for tibial fractures, what method was occasionally needed to improve fracture reduction intraoperatively?
A. Use of interfragmentary lag screw
B. Temporary circular external fixator
C. Blocking pin application
D. Fenestrated plate fixation
E. Flexible fixation with ESF
Answer: Temporary circular external fixator
Explanation: Some cases required transient circular fixation to improve reduction before plating.
In Scheuermann 2024 et al., on 3D-printed reduction guides for tibial fractures, how was virtual surgical planning efficiency affected by case number?
A. Increased time with each case
B. Stayed constant over study
C. Decreased with each case
D. Inconsistent trend
E. Only improved after 10 cases
Answer: Decreased with each case
Explanation: Planning time improved with experience, trending toward under 48 hours.
In Scheuermann 2024 et al., on 3D-printed reduction guides for tibial fractures, what percentage of fractures achieved near-anatomic reduction postoperatively?
A. 67%
B. 73%
C. 87%
D. 93%
E. 100%
Answer: 87%
Explanation: 13/15 fractures achieved near-anatomic reduction; the rest were acceptable.