3D printing for patient-specific implants in musculoskeletal oncology

Kotrych, Daniel; Angelini, Andrea; Bohatyrewicz, Andrzej; Ruggieri, Pietro

doi:10.1530/eor-23-0066

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of 3D-printed prostheses is increasing, especially in musculoskeletal oncology as well as in cases of complex revisions with extensive bone loss. Improving 3D printing technology allows for the creation of custom implants to face complex reconstructions [14,15].…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When Is a Two-Stage Surgical Procedure Indicated in the Treatment of Pseudotumors of the Hip? A Retrospective Study of 21 Cases and a Review of the Literature

Cerchiaro,

Trovarelli,

Angelini

et al. 2024

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: A pseudotumor of the hip is a sterile, non-neoplastic soft tissue mass associated with total hip arthroplasties. Pseudotumors may mimic soft tissue tumors or infections, and thus a differential diagnosis is crucial, and biopsy is recommended. The purpose of this study was to compare the complications and functional results between one-stage and two-stage procedures. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 21 patients surgically treated at our institution with “pseudotumors” associated with hip prosthesis (8 male, 13 female with a mean age of 69 years). One-stage revision was performed in 10 cases and two-stage reversion in 10, with excision only in 1 case. Complications were classified as major and minor and functional results assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS). (3) Results: Five patients (24%) reported major complications. The survival rate for all complications was 75%. The overall survival rate was 95% at 5 years. The mean HHS ranged from 35 pre-op to 75 post-op, highlighting improved functional results in all cases. We recorded no differences in complications or functional outcomes between the one- and two-stage procedures. (4) Conclusions: In our experience, the two-stage surgical approach is preferable in cases with major bone defects and larger pseudotumor sizes. The use of custom-made 3D-printed prostheses is increasing and is a further reason to prefer two-stage revision.

show abstract

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The contribution of a multidisciplinary approach is evident considering the complexity of the type of intervention, especially in explant prostheses and complex prosthesis such as custom-made 3D-printed prostheses [13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Is a Two-Stage Surgical Procedure Indicated in the Treatment of Pseudotumors of the Hip? A Retrospective Study of 21 Cases and a Review of the Literature

Cerchiaro,

Trovarelli,

Angelini

et al. 2024

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like in many other sectors, AM has shown very promising results in orthopedic applications also by reducing the known lengthy processing steps and lead time needed to provide treatment for orthopedic patients. Among all, AM highly enables patient specific treatments through a pre-production analysis of implants that are designed based on unique patients' specific conditions [2]. Besides to the accurate and reproducible fabrication of implants, AM also eases the incorporation of additives including drugs, cells or any other forms of cues that are needed to facilitate the treatment.…”

Section: Additive Manufacturing Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Additively Manufactured Implant Applications in Orthopedic Surgery

Karpat

2024

ASOAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The technologies of 3D-printing in medicine have revolutionized patient care and treatment strategies. From fabricating patient-specific anatomical models [ 1 , 2 ] to producing customized surgical guides [ 3 , 4 ] and implants [ 5 , 6 ], 3D-printing offers rapid, precise and tailored solutions that facilitate medical education [ 7 , 8 ], improve patient information [ 9 , 10 ] and enhance procedural and surgical outcomes [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assurance of 3D-printed patient specific anatomical models: a systematic review

Schulze,

Juergensen,

Rischen

et al. 2024

3D Print Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The responsible use of 3D-printing in medicine includes a context-based quality assurance. Considerable literature has been published in this field, yet the quality of assessment varies widely. The limited discriminatory power of some assessment methods challenges the comparison of results. The total error for patient specific anatomical models comprises relevant partial errors of the production process: segmentation error (SegE), digital editing error (DEE), printing error (PrE). The present review provides an overview to improve the general understanding of the process specific errors, quantitative analysis, and standardized terminology. Methods This review focuses on literature on quality assurance of patient-specific anatomical models in terms of geometric accuracy published before December 4th, 2022 (n = 139). In an attempt to organize the literature, the publications are assigned to comparable categories and the absolute values of the maximum mean deviation (AMMD) per publication are determined therein. Results The three major examined types of original structures are teeth or jaw (n = 52), skull bones without jaw (n = 17) and heart with coronary arteries (n = 16). VPP (vat photopolymerization) is the most frequently employed basic 3D-printing technology (n = 112 experiments). The median values of AMMD (AMMD: The metric AMMD is defined as the largest linear deviation, based on an average value from at least two individual measurements.) are 0.8 mm for the SegE, 0.26 mm for the PrE and 0.825 mm for the total error. No average values are found for the DEE. Conclusion The total error is not significantly higher than the partial errors which may compensate each other. Consequently SegE, DEE and PrE should be analyzed individually to describe the result quality as their sum according to rules of error propagation. Current methods for quality assurance of the segmentation are often either realistic and accurate or resource efficient. Future research should focus on implementing models for cost effective evaluations with high accuracy and realism. Our system of categorization may be enhancing the understanding of the overall process and a valuable contribution to the structural design and reporting of future experiments. It can be used to educate specialists for risk assessment and process validation within the additive manufacturing industry. Graphical Abstract Context of the figures in this review. Center: Fig. 5+ 7; top (blue): Fig. 8; right (green): Fig. 9; bottom (yellow): Fig. 10; left (red): Fig. 11. A version in high resolution can be found online in the supplementary material.

show abstract

3D printing for patient-specific implants in musculoskeletal oncology

Cited by 12 publications

References 69 publications

When Is a Two-Stage Surgical Procedure Indicated in the Treatment of Pseudotumors of the Hip? A Retrospective Study of 21 Cases and a Review of the Literature

When Is a Two-Stage Surgical Procedure Indicated in the Treatment of Pseudotumors of the Hip? A Retrospective Study of 21 Cases and a Review of the Literature

Additively Manufactured Implant Applications in Orthopedic Surgery

Quality assurance of 3D-printed patient specific anatomical models: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About