Use of 3D modelling and 3D printing for the diagnostic process, decision making and preoperative planning of periprosthetic acetabular fractures

Marongiu, Giuseppe; Prost, Roberto; Capone, Antonio

doi:10.1136/bcr-2019-233117

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Afterward, they transmitted all the analysis to an actual printed model of the whole pelvis and a particular fracture of the wall made from plastic to perform preoperative templating and planning for surgery. They conclude this technique would be useful, especially in patients with poor bone quality, 168 to facilitate surgery. 169 Another study was a challenging case of a 21 year old man diagnosed with osteosarcoma.…”

Section: Toward Personalized Medicine Frommentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Bioprinting in Regenerative Medicine: Naturally Derived Bioinks and Stem Cells

Moghaddam

Khonakdar

Arjmand

et al. 2021

ACS Appl. Bio Mater.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regenerative medicine offers the potential to repair or substitute defective tissues by constructing active tissues to address the scarcity and demands for transplantation. The method of forming 3D constructs made up of biomaterials, cells, and biomolecules is called bioprinting. Bioprinting of stem cells provides the ability to reliably recreate tissues, organs, and microenvironments to be used in regenerative medicine. 3D bioprinting is a technique that uses several biomaterials and cells to tailor a structure with clinically relevant geometries and sizes. This technique's promise is demonstrated by 3D bioprinted tissues, including skin, bone, cartilage, and cardiovascular, corneal, hepatic, and adipose tissues. Several bioprinting methods have been combined with stem cells to effectively produce tissue models, including adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and differentiation techniques. In this review, technological challenges of printed stem cells using prevalent naturally derived bioinks (e.g., carbohydrate polymers and protein-based polymers, peptides, and decellularized extracellular matrix), recent advancements, leading companies, and clinical trials in the field of 3D bioprinting are delineated.

show abstract

Section: Toward Personalized Medicine Frommentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Bioprinting in Regenerative Medicine: Naturally Derived Bioinks and Stem Cells

Moghaddam

Khonakdar

Arjmand

et al. 2021

ACS Appl. Bio Mater.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another issue with conventional imaging and planning during revision are the artefacts in CT scans, caused by implants in situ. In such scenarios, especially for periprosthetic fractures, Marongiu et al have shown that a 3DP model aids in preoperative templating and sizing [42]. It includes measures of shape, location and extent of distorted anatomy including bone loss.…”

Section: Pre-operative Planning and Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of 3D Printing in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review

Kumar

Vatsya

Rajnish

et al. 2020

IJOO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Ideal surgical positioning and placement of implants during arthroplasty are crucial for long-term survival and optimal functional outcomes. Inadequate bone stock or defects, and anatomical variations can influence the outcomes. Threedimensional printing (3DP) is an evolving technology that could provide patient-specific instrumentation and implants for arthroplasty, taking into account anatomical variations and defects. However, its application in this field is still not adequately studied and described. The present review was conceptualised to assess the practicality, the pros and cons and the current status of usage of 3DP in the field of hip and knee arthroplasties and joint reconstruction surgeries. Methods A PubMed database search was conducted and a total number of 135 hits were obtained, out of which only 30 articles were relevant. These 30 studies were assessed to obtain the qualitative evidence of the applicability and the current status of 3D printing in arthroplasty. Results Currently, 3DP is used for preoperative planning with 3D models, to assess bone defects and anatomy, to determine the appropriate cuts and to develop patient-specific instrumentation and implants (cages, liners, tibial base plates, femoral stem). Its models can be used for teaching and training young surgeons, as well as patient education regarding the surgical complexities. The outcomes of using customised instrumentations and implants have been promising and 3D printing can evolve into routine practice in the years to come. Conclusion 3D printing in arthroplasty is an evolving field with promising results; however, current evidence is insufficient to determine significant advantages that can be termed cost effective and readily available.

show abstract

“…Biomechanical models allow evaluating and predicting the behavior of potential fixation configurations in different types of fractures using computer simulation and laboratory tests [8]. Computational models also aid in making several therapeutic decisions, such as patient positioning for radiotherapy treatments [9], kidney stones surgery [10], and preoperative orthopedic planning processes [11], [12]. The construction of biomechanical models starts with the acquisition of a stack of 2D cross-sectional medical images (i.e., computerized tomography, CT), which are then volumetrically represented and used in numerical computational analyses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SSOP Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Tibia and Fibula for Applications in Biomechanical Fracture Models

Gallon

Cardona

Patiño

et al. 2022

Ing.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Non-fatal injuries represent a public health issue. Among them, lower limb fractures have a large impact on the costs related to orthopedic treatments. In this work, a three-dimensional reconstruction of the tibia and fibula was performed for biomechanical applications with the purpose of defining the 3D reconstruction parameters that allow reducing patients’ radiation exposure and computational costs. Method: For the 3D reconstruction, a computerized tomography taken from a volunteer was used, as well as two software applications specialized in DICOM image reconstruction (Mimics Research and 3DSlicer). The number of images included in the volume was modified, and the results were compared. The quality of the reconstructed volumes was verified by comparing the reference volume reconstructed with the total number of images/slices vs. the modified volumes. The MeshLab software was used for this purpose. The analyzed parameters were the distance differences between the reference and the alternative models, as well as the qualitative curvature analysis. Results: The ANOVA results for the Max (maximum distance between meshes) response shows that software and slices are significant factors. However, the software-slices interaction did not have a significant influence. As for the RMS (root mean square) distance response, software, slices, and the software-slices interaction are not significant. For the Mean distance response, slices and the software-slices interaction are not significant. Nevertheless, software significantly influences the response. These results suggest a potential way to reduce the computational cost and the patient’s radiation exposure in future biomechanical and preoperatory analyses, since the same quality can be obtained by including fewer 2D images in the reconstruction. Conclusions: The reconstructed surfaces are smoother when Mimics is used, even though the same smoothness factor was employed in both software applications during the reconstruction. When 16 slices are used (retained every 16 images from the complete original model), the distance differences increased for both bones (tibia and fibula). For the RMS, reducing the number of slices and using either one of the two applications analyzed would not show any significant differences in the reconstruction, thus allowing the potential reduction of radiation exposure of the patient. Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to Universidad Nacional de Colombia for funding the project “Estado de esfuerzos en un elemento de osteosíntesis en la consolidación de una fractura de miembro inferior”.

show abstract

Use of 3D modelling and 3D printing for the diagnostic process, decision making and preoperative planning of periprosthetic acetabular fractures

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Review of Bioprinting in Regenerative Medicine: Naturally Derived Bioinks and Stem Cells

Review of Bioprinting in Regenerative Medicine: Naturally Derived Bioinks and Stem Cells

Application of 3D Printing in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review

SSOP Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Tibia and Fibula for Applications in Biomechanical Fracture Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About