Application of 3D printing in the treatment of appendicular skeleton fractures: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparing the efficacy of 3D-printing-assisted surgery with traditional surgical treatment of fracture: an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

The objective of this review is to evaluate the methodological quality of meta-analyses and observe the consistency of the evidence they generated to provide comprehensive and reliable evidence for the clinical use of three-dimensional (3D) printing in surgical treatment of fracture.

METHODS

We searched three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) up until August 2024. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards were adhered to in this review. The Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 was used to rate the quality and reliability of the meta-analyses (MAs), and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to grade the outcomes. Furthermore, Graphical Representation of Overlap for Overviews (GROOVE) was employed to examine overlap, and the resulting evidence was categorized into four groups according to established criteria for evidence classification.

RESULTS

Results from 14 meta-analyses were combined. AMSTAR 2 gave six meta-analyses a high rating, six MAs a moderate rating, and two MAs a low rating. Three-dimensional printing shows promising results in fracture surgical treatment, significantly reducing operation time and loss of blood for tibial plateau fracture. For acetabular fracture, apart from the positive effects on operation time (ratio of mean (ROM) = 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-0.83, I2 = 93%) and blood loss (ROM = 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.81, I2 = 71%), 3D printing helps reduce postoperative complications (odds ratio (OR) = 0.42, 95% CI, 0.22-0.78, I2 = 9%). For proximal humerus fracture, 3D printing helps shorten operation time (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -19.49; 95% CI -26.95 to -12.03; p < 0.05; I2 = 91%), reduce blood loss (WMD = -46.49; 95% CI -76.01 to -16.97; p < 0.05; I2 = 98%), and get higher Neer score that includes evaluation of pain, function, range of motion, and anatomical positioning (WMD = 9.57; 95% CI 8.11 to 11.04; p < 0.05; I2 = 64%). Additionally, positive results are also indicated for other fractures, especially for operation time, blood loss, and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with traditional fracture surgical treatment, 3D-printing-assisted surgery has significant advantages and great effectiveness in terms of operation time, loss of blood, and postoperative complications in the treatment of many different types of fractures, with less harm to patients.

A feasibility study of several 3D printing methods for applications in epilepsy surgery

OBJECTIVE

To describe the process of three-dimensional printing in epilepsy surgery using three different methods: low-force stereolithography (SLA), filament deposition modeling (FDM), and Polyjet Stratasys, while comparing them in terms of printing efficiency, cost, and clinical utility. MRI and CT images of patient anatomy have been limited to review in the two-dimensional plane, which provides only partial representation of intricate intracranial structures. There has been growing interest in 3D printing of physical models of this complex anatomy to be used as an educational tool and for surgical visualization. One specific application is in epilepsy surgery where there are challenges in visualizing complex intracranial anatomy in relation to implanted surgical tools.

METHODS

MRI and CT data from patients with refractory epilepsy from a single center that underwent surgery are converted into 3D volumes, or stereolithography files. These were then printed using three popular 3D printing methods: SLA, FDM, and Polyjet. Faculty were surveyed on the impact of 3D modeling on the surgical planning process.

RESULTS

All three methods generated physical models with an increasing degree of resolution, transparency, and clinical utility directly related to cost of production and accurate representation of anatomy. Polyjet models were the most transparent and clearly represented intricate implanted electrodes but had the highest associated cost. FDM produced relatively inexpensive models that, however, were nearly completely opaque, limiting clinical utility. SLA produced economical and highly transparent models but was limited by single material capacity.

SIGNIFICANCE

Three-dimensional printing of patient-specific anatomy is feasible with a variety of printing methods. The clinical utility of lower-cost methods is limited by model transparency and lack of multi-material overlay respectively. Polyjet successfully generated transparent models with high resolution of internal structures but is cost-prohibitive. Further research needs to be done to explore cost-saving methods of modeling.

Influence of preoperative simulation on the reduction quality and clinical outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation for complex proximal humerus fractures

PURPOSE

Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are common. With the development of locking plates, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the proximal humerus can provide excellent clinical outcomes. The quality of fracture reduction is crucial in the locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of 3-dimensional (3D) printing technology and computer virtual technology assisted preoperative simulation on the reduction quality and clinical outcomes of 3-part and 4-part proximal humeral fractures.

METHOD

A retrospective comparative analysis of 3-part and 4-part PHFs undergoing open reduction internal fixation was performed. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether computer virtual technology and 3D printed technology were used for preoperative simulation: the simulation group and the conventional group. Operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, quality of fracture reduction, Constant scores, American Society for Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (ASES) scores, shoulder range of motion, complications, and revision surgeries were assessed.

RESULTS

This study included 67 patients (58.3%) in the conventional group and 48 patients (41.7%) in the simulation group. The patient demographics and fracture characteristics were comparable in these groups. Compared with the conventional group, the simulation group had shorter operation time and less intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.001, both). Immediate postoperative assessment of fracture reduction showed a higher incidence of greater tuberosity cranialization of < 5 mm, neck-shaft angle of 120° to 150°, and head shaft displacement of < 5 mm in the simulation group. The incidence of good reduction was 2.6 times higher in the simulation group than in the conventional group (95% CI, 1.2-5.8). At the final follow-up, the chance of forward flexion > 120° (OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.8-18.0) and mean constant score of > 65 (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.5-7.4) was higher in the simulation group than the conventional group, as well as a lower incidence of complications in the simulation group was obtained (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified that preoperative simulation assisted by computer virtual technology and 3D printed technology can improve reduction quality and clinical outcomes in treatment of 3-part and 4-part PHFs.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 3D Printing Technology for the Treatment of Acetabular Fractures

Purpose

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has been widely used in orthopedics surgery. However, its efficacy in acetabular fractures remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effect of using 3D printing technology in the surgery for acetabular fractures.

Methods

The systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Four major electronic databases were searched (inception to February 2021). Studies were screened using a priori criteria. Data from each study were extracted by two independent reviewers and organized using a standardized table. Data were pooled and presented in forest plots.

Results

Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. Four were prospective randomized trials, and nine used a retrospective comparative design. The patients aged between 32.1 (SD 14.6) years and 51.9 (SD 18.9) years. Based on the pooled analyses, overall, 3D printing-assisted surgery decreased operation time by 38.8 minutes (95% CI: -54.9, -22.8), intraoperative blood loss by 259.7 ml (95% CI: -394.6, -124.9), instrumentation time by 34.1 minutes (95% CI: -49.0, -19.1). Traditional surgery was less likely to achieve good/excellent function of hip (RR, 0.53; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.82) and more likely to have complications than 3D printing-assisted surgery (RR, 1.19; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.33).

Conclusions

3D printing technology demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acetabular fractures. It may improve surgery-related and clinical outcomes. More prospective studies using a rigorous design (e.g., randomized trial with blinding) are warranted to confirm the long-term effects of 3D printing technology in orthopedics surgeries.