Table 1.

Characteristics of Included Studies

Study	Level of Evidence [2]	Sample Size	Setting	Relevant Reported Result Domains	p value
Zheng et al., Sci Rep, 2017 [3]	3	12 cases v 13 controls	Proximal Femoral Varus and Shortening Osteotomy following DDH	Reduced OR Time, intraoperative Imaging and better correction achieved relative to plan	p < 0.05
Zheng et al., Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, 2017 [4]	3	11 patients	Accuracy of placement of screws in paediatric hip plate	OR Time Intraoperative Imaging Template Fit/Match to Cortex Screw Placement and Trajectory	no comparison group
Zhou et all., Medicine 2016 [5]	4	5 Cadaveric Specimens, 10 Hemi-Pelvises	Bernese Peri-Acetabular Osteotomy	Computer simulated osteotomy vs 3D printed patient specific guide in periacetabular osteotomy	p > 0.05
Sallent et al., Bone Joint Res, 2017 [6]	3	5 Cadaveric Specimens, 10 Hemi-Pelvises	Pelvic Bone Tumour Resection	Deviation of Osteotomy from Plan	p < 0.032
Tong K et al., Journal of Southern Medical Uni, 2013 [7]	4	13 hips	Steele Osteotomy for DDH	Accuracy of osteotomy using Reverse Engineered templates	No statistical analysis
Shi, Sun [8]	3	14 controls v 15 cases	Femoral corrective osteotomy in DDH	Accuracy of correction, intraopetrative time, number of fluoroscopic images	p = 0.0003
Cherkasskiy et al. [9]	3	15 patients	Proximal femoral osteotomy following SCFE - comparison using 3D model, no model and senior surgeons (5 pts. per group)	Operative time, fluoroscopy time	p = 0.40, 0.30
Bortulev et al. [10]	3	15 cases v 15 controls	Triple pelvic osteotomy	Accuracy of correction	p < 0.05
Jentzsch et al. [11]	4	4	Pelvic tumour resection	Tumour free resection margins,	no statistical analysis
Buhler T et al. [12]	5	1	Use of 3D printed template guide for osteotomy of the femur to correct malunion	Accuracy of correction	no statistical analysis