A Two-Step Approach for 3D-Guided Patient-Specific Corrective Limb Osteotomies

Functional outcome of 2-D- and 3-D-guided corrective forearm osteotomies: a systematic review

We performed a systematic review to compare conventional (2-D) versus 3-D-guided corrective osteotomies regarding intraoperative results, patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, incidence of complications and pain score. PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched, and 53 articles were included, reporting 1257 patients undergoing forearm corrective osteotomies between 2010 and 2022. 3-D-guided surgery resulted in a greater improvement in median Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (28, SD 7 vs. 35, SD 5) and fewer complications (12% vs. 6%). Pain scores and range of motion were similar between 3-D-guided and conventional surgery. 3-D-guided corrective osteotomy surgery appears to improve patient-reported outcomes and reduce complications compared to conventional methods. However, due to the limited number of comparative studies and the heterogeneity of the studies, a large randomized controlled trial is needed to draw definitive conclusions.Level of evidence: III.

3D-assisted corrective osteotomies of the distal radius: a comparison of pre-contoured conventional implants versus patient-specific implants

PURPOSE

There is a debate whether corrective osteotomies of the distal radius should be performed using a 3D work-up with pre-contoured conventional implants (i.e., of-the-shelf) or patient-specific implants (i.e., custom-made). This study aims to assess the postoperative accuracy of 3D-assisted correction osteotomy of the distal radius using either implant.

METHODS

Twenty corrective osteotomies of the distal radius were planned using 3D technologies and performed on Thiel embalmed human cadavers. Our workflow consisted of virtual surgical planning and 3D printed guides for osteotomy and repositioning. Subsequently, left radii were fixated with patient-specific implants, and right radii were fixated with pre-contoured conventional implants. The accuracy of the corrections was assessed through measurement of rotation, dorsal and radial angulation and translations with postoperative CT scans in comparison to their preoperative virtual plan.

RESULTS

Twenty corrective osteotomies were executed according to their plan. The median differences between the preoperative plan and postoperative results were 2.6° (IQR: 1.6-3.9°) for rotation, 1.4° (IQR: 0.6-2.9°) for dorsal angulation, 4.7° (IQR: 2.9-5.7°) for radial angulation, and 2.4 mm (IQR: 1.3-2.9 mm) for translation of the distal radius, thus sufficient for application in clinical practice. There was no significant difference in accuracy of correction when comparing pre-contoured conventional implants with patient-specific implants.

CONCLUSION

3D-assisted corrective osteotomy of the distal radius with either pre-contoured conventional implants or patient-specific implants results in accurate corrections. The choice of implant type should not solely depend on accuracy of the correction, but also be based on other considerations like the availability of resources and the preoperative assessment of implant fitting.