Evaluation of a customized 3D‐printed saw guide for tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: An ex vivo study

Abstract

Objective To determine whether a tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) performed with a customized 3D‐printed guide and jig is more accurate than the traditional technique using a jig alone. Study design In vitro study. Sample population Cadaveric canine pelvic limbs (n = 10) and 20 synthetic bone models. Methods Tibial plateau leveling osteotomy using a jig with (n = 10) and without (n = 10) a customized 3D‐printed guide were performed in bone models, and TPLO using a jig with (n = 5) and without (n = 5) a customized 3D‐printed guide were performed in cadaveric limbs. Angulation of the osteotomy, angulation of the proximal jig pin, angular/torsional deformity and medial cortex damage were measured from photographs of the specimens and compared. Results In the bone models, there were differences with and without the 3D guide for mean osteotomy inclination (−0.06° vs. –1.74°, P < .001), osteotomy torsion (5268 vs. 10 469 visible osteotomy pixels, P < .001), and medial cortical damage (2970 vs. 18 562 pixels, P < .001). In the cadaveric study, osteotomy inclination (−1.1° vs. 1.01°, P < .01), induced angular deformity (0.17° vs. –3.01°, P < .001) and angulation of the proximal jig pin (−0.27° vs. 0.80°, P < .001) differed between groups. Conclusion The 3D‐printed guide during TPLO resulted in slightly more accurate osteotomies and proximal jig pin placement, and reduced medial cortex damage. Clinical significance A customized 3D‐printed guide may improve intraoperative accuracy for TPLO, although the clinical significance of the small benefits is unknown.

Predicting tibial plateau angles following four different types of cranial closing wedge ostectomy

“…A further limitation of this study was that 3D‐marker placement was performed by only one author and all measurements were performed by a single observer. However, measurement reproducibility is expected to be high, as intraobserver reproducibility has been shown to be excellent when measuring TPA using CT 26 . Also Caylor et al 24 reported no statistical difference in TPA measurements between experienced observers on radiographs.…”