Traditional three-dimensional printing technology versus three-dimensional printing mirror model technology in the treatment of isolated acetabular fractures: a retrospective analysis

Abstract

Objective This study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of traditional three-dimensional (3D) printing technology and 3D printing mirror model technology in the treatment of isolated acetabular fractures. Methods Prospectively maintained databases were reviewed to retrospectively compare patients with an isolated acetabular fracture who were treated with traditional 3D printing technology (Group T) or 3D printing mirror model technology (Group M) from 2011 to 2017. In total, 146 advanced-age patients (146 hips) with an isolated acetabular fracture (Group T, n = 72; Group M, n = 74) were assessed for a mean follow-up period of 29 months (range, 24–34 months). The primary endpoint was the postoperative Harris hip score (HHS). The secondary endpoints were the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy screening time, fracture reduction quality, and incidence of postoperative complications at the final follow-up. Results The HHS, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy screening time, and incidence of postoperative complications were significantly different between the groups, with Group M showing superior clinical outcomes. Conclusion In patients with an isolated acetabular fracture, 3D printing mirror model technology might lead to more accurate and efficient treatment than traditional 3D printing technology.

Traditional versus mirror three-dimensional printing technology for isolated acetabular fractures: a retrospective study with a median follow-up of 25 months

“…The current findings are in accordance with those of previous studies, 11,14–17 showing that MTT significantly shortens the operative time, reduces blood loss and the number of intraoperative fluoroscopy screenings, and can achieve anatomic reduction, thus significantly reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. Li et al.…”

“…The current findings are in accordance with those of previous studies, 11,[14][15][16][17] showing that MTT significantly shortens the operative time, reduces blood loss and the number of intraoperative fluoroscopy screenings, and can achieve anatomic reduction, thus significantly reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. Li et al 18 reported 16 cases of IAFs and showed that MTT has distinct advantages over traditional surgery and can provide surgeons with exceedingly intuitive fracture details, which plays a crucial role in intraoperative fracture reduction.…”

“…1 For some small bone fragments or comminuted fractures, splicing or separating on a 3D model is extremely difficult because the process is likely to remove anatomical markers, especially in the case of compression fractures. 11 The currently available 3D technology remains in the early stage, the accuracy of model printing is low, and the edges of the model are rough. 5 Furthermore, the resolution and parameters need to be adjusted by professional technicians because of the lack of uniform parameters, which results in different printed models.…”

“…19 Therefore, intuitively determining the spatial relationship between fractures through the model may have limitations. 11 Additionally, the splice of fracture blocks based on the printed acetabular model may differ from the actual acetabular shape, which is mainly limited by the printed materials. 8,15 MTT is based on the bilateral symmetry of human bones.…”

“…13 IAF, loosening, lower limb shortening (>1.5 cm), grade !III heterotopic ossification, peripheral nerve injury, and osteoarthritis were evaluated based our previous criteria. 11 Failure was defined as removal of the reconstruction plate. 2…”