Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 5/2020

01-05-2020 | Bone Defect | Original Paper

Analysis of principles inspiring design of three-dimensional-printed custom-made prostheses in two referral centres

Authors: Andrea Angelini, Daniel Kotrych, Giulia Trovarelli, Andrzej Szafrański, Andrzej Bohatyrewicz, Pietro Ruggieri

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 5/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology used in numerous medical fields. Reconstruction of large bone defects after tumor resections or complex revision surgeries is challenging especially in specific sites where modular prostheses are not available. The possibility to realize custom-made 3D-printed prostheses improves their application in surgical field despite the complication rate, gaining a lot of attention for potential benefits.

Objectives

We asked: (1) What are the emerging indications and designs of 3D-printed prostheses for complex bone reconstructions? (2) What complications occur with the use of custom implants considering site?

Study design and methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of every patient in whom a custom-made 3D-printed prosthesis was used to reconstruct a bone defect after resection for a bone tumour or challenging revision surgery from 2009 to 2018 in two referral centres. Forty-one patients (11 males [27%], 30 females [73%]) with a mean age of 41 years (range, 10–78 years) were included. Our general indications for using these implants were complex reconstructions of massive bone defects, in the absence of available modular prostheses. Seven were non-oncologic patients, whereas 24 patients were mainly treated for their malignant bone tumours. Custom-made 3D-printed prostheses were used in pelvis (29), forearm (6), scapula (2), distal tibia (2), calcaneus (1), and femoral diaphysis (1). The reconstruction included complete articular replacement in 24 cases (58%) whereas a combined spinopelvic implant has been used in two cases. Flaps were used in 25 cases (61%). Statistical analyses include Kaplan–Meier curves of survival.

Results

The mean follow-up was 20 months. In the oncologic group, overall survival was 89% at five year follow-up and only three patients died of disease. Only one patient required implant removal due to deep infection. Overall major and minor complication rate was 22% (14 complications in 9/41 patients), mainly wound-related problems. One patient reported a periprosthetic fracture, one had hip dislocation, and four (12% [4/34 cases]) had local recurrence. Mean MSTS functional outcome score at follow-up was 73% (range, 23–100%), with a full weight bearing at an average time of 73 days from surgery of lower limbs.

Conclusions

Custom-made 3D-printed prostheses represent at today a promising reconstructive technique, maintaining however the correct indications for their use in musculoskeletal oncology and challenging revision surgery. Complication rate is acceptable, with infection and wound healing problems relatively common after complex pelvic reconstructions. We will continue to follow our patients over the longer term to ascertain the role of these implants; however, larger studies will need to confirm indications and control for prognostic factors.
Literature
10.
go back to reference Bus MP, Szafranski A, Sellevold S, Goryn T, Jutte PC, Bramer JA, Fiocco M, Streitbürger A, Kotrych D, van de Sande MA, Dijkstra PD LUMiC ® endoprosthetic reconstruction after periacetabular tumor resection: short-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(3):686–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4805-4 Bus MP, Szafranski A, Sellevold S, Goryn T, Jutte PC, Bramer JA, Fiocco M, Streitbürger A, Kotrych D, van de Sande MA, Dijkstra PD LUMiC ® endoprosthetic reconstruction after periacetabular tumor resection: short-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(3):686–695. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11999-016-4805-4
11.
go back to reference Campanacci M, Capanna R (1991) Pelvic resections: the Rizzoli institute experience. Orthop Clin N Am 22:65–86 Campanacci M, Capanna R (1991) Pelvic resections: the Rizzoli institute experience. Orthop Clin N Am 22:65–86
28.
go back to reference Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Winkelmann W (1998) Treatment outcome of pelvic sarcomas in young children: orthopaedic and oncologic analysis. J Pediatr Orthop 18:350–355PubMed Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Winkelmann W (1998) Treatment outcome of pelvic sarcomas in young children: orthopaedic and oncologic analysis. J Pediatr Orthop 18:350–355PubMed
32.
go back to reference Schatzker J, Wong MK (1999) Acetabular revision: the role of rings and cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:187–197CrossRef Schatzker J, Wong MK (1999) Acetabular revision: the role of rings and cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:187–197CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Xiu P, Jia Z, Lv J, Yin C, Cheng Y, Zhang K, Song C, Leng H, Zheng Y, Cai H, Liu Z (2016) Tailored surface treatment of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V by microarc oxidation for enhanced osseointegration via optimized bone in-growth patterns and interlocked bone/implant interface. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8:17964–17975. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b05893 CrossRefPubMed Xiu P, Jia Z, Lv J, Yin C, Cheng Y, Zhang K, Song C, Leng H, Zheng Y, Cai H, Liu Z (2016) Tailored surface treatment of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V by microarc oxidation for enhanced osseointegration via optimized bone in-growth patterns and interlocked bone/implant interface. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8:17964–17975. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acsami.​6b05893 CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Analysis of principles inspiring design of three-dimensional-printed custom-made prostheses in two referral centres
Authors
Andrea Angelini
Daniel Kotrych
Giulia Trovarelli
Andrzej Szafrański
Andrzej Bohatyrewicz
Pietro Ruggieri
Publication date
01-05-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04523-y

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

International Orthopaedics 5/2020 Go to the issue