Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2022 / Cilt: 56 - Sayı: 2

Patient-specific three-dimensional printing spine model for surgical planning in AO spine type-C fracture posterior long-segment fixation

Pages
138–146
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: It was found that there was a statistically significant difference in instrumentation time, blood loss and intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure in the 3D model-assisted surgery group (61.9 ± 4.7 min, 268.4 ± 42.7 ml, 16.3 ± 1.9 times) compared to the conventional surgery group (75.5 ± 11.0 min, 347.8 ± 52.2 mL, 19.7 ± 2.4 times) (t = 4.5325, P < 0.0001 and t = 4.7109, P < 0.0001 and t = 4.4937, P < 0.0001, respectively) Although the screw misplacement rate of the conventional surgery group was higher than that of the 3D model-assisted surgery group, the only statistically significant difference was in the medial axial encroachment (t = 5.101 P = 0.02) .

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to compare duration of surgery, intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure, blood loss and the accuracy of pedicular screw placement between 3D model-assisted surgery and conventional surgery for AO spinal C-type injuries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: In this study 32 patients who were admitted with thoracolumbar AO spinal C-type injuries were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: It was found that there was a statistically significant difference in instrumentation time, blood loss and intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure in the 3D model-assisted surgery group (61.9 ± 4.7 min, 268.4 ± 42.7 ml, 16.3 ± 1.9 times) compared to the conventional surgery group (75.5 ± 11.0 min, 347.8 ± 52.2 mL, 19.7 ± 2.4 times) (t = 4.5325, P < 0.0001 and t = 4.7109, P < 0.0001 and t = 4.4937, P < 0.0001, respectively) Although the screw misplacement rate of the conventional surgery group was higher than that of the 3D model-assisted surgery group, the only statistically significant difference was in the medial axial encroachment (t = 5.101 P = 0.02) .
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare duration of surgery, intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure, blood loss and the accuracy of pedicular screw placement between 3D model-assisted surgery and conventional surgery for AO spinal C-type injuries. Methods: In this study 32 patients who were admitted with thoracolumbar AO spinal C-type injuries were included. These patients were divided randomly into two groups of 16 where one group was operated on using conventional surgery and the other group was operated on using 3D model-assisted surgery. During surgery, instrumentation time, amount of blood loss and intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure were recorded. Moreover, the status of the screws in the pedicles was assessed as described by Learch and Wiesner’s and regional sagittal angles (RSA) were measured preop and postoperatively. Results: It was found that there was a statistically significant difference in instrumentation time, blood loss and intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure in the 3D model-assisted surgery group (61.9 ± 4.7 min, 268.4 ± 42.7 ml, 16.3 ± 1.9 times) compared to the conventional surgery group (75.5 ± 11.0 min, 347.8 ± 52.2 mL, 19.7 ± 2.4 times) (t = 4.5325, P < 0.0001 and t = 4.7109, P < 0.0001 and t = 4.4937, P < 0.0001, respectively) Although the screw misplacement rate of the conventional surgery group was higher than that of the 3D model-assisted surgery group, the only statistically significant difference was in the medial axial encroachment (t = 5.101 P = 0.02) . There was no severe misplacement of pedicle screws in either group. There were no statistically significant differences between postoperative RSA angles and were in both groups restored significantly. Conclusion: The results of this study have shown us that the 3D model helps surgeons see patients’ pathoanatomy and determine rod lengths, pedicle screw angles and lengths preoperatively and peroparatively, which in turn shortens operative time, reduces blood loss and fluoroscopy exposure.

🔖

Cite This Article

Öztürk, A. M., Süer, O., Akçalı, Ö., Govsa, F., Özer, M. A. (2022). Patient-specific three-dimensional printing spine model for surgical planning in AO spine type-C fracture posterior long-segment fixation. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 56 - Sayı: 2, 138–146. https://ajindex.com/articles/427938

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. . Elmi-Terander A, Skulason H, Söderman M, et al. Surgical navigation technol- ogy based on augmented reality and integrated 3D intraoperative imaging a spine cadaveric feasibility and accuracy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016
  2. 41(21):E1303-E1311. [CrossRef] 2. Sheha ED, Gandhi SD, Colman MW. 3D printing in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2019
  3. 7(Suppl 5):S164. [CrossRef] 3. Cai H, Liu Z, Wei F, Yu M, Xu N, Li Z. 3D printing in spine surgery. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018
  4. 359 4. Wu AM, Lin JL, Kwan KYH, Wang XY, Zhao J. 3D-printing techniques in spine surgery: the future prospects and current challenges. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018
  5. 15(6):399-401. [CrossRef] 5. Senkoylu A, Daldal I, Cetinkaya M. 3D printing and spine surgery. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2020
  6. 28(2):2309499020927081. [CrossRef] 6. Chen PC, Chang CC, Te CH, et al. The accuracy of 3D printing assistance in the spinal deformity surgery. BioMed Res Int. 2019
  7. 7196528. 7. Cho W, Job AV, Chen J, Baek JH. A review of current clinical applications of three- dimensional printing in spine surgery. Asian Spine J. 2018
  8. 12(1):171-177. [CrossRef] 8. Gadia A, Shah K, Nene A. Emergence of three-dimensional printing technology and its utility in spine surgery. Asian Spine J. 2018
  9. 12(2):365-371. [CrossRef] 9. Garg B, Mehta N. Current status of 3D printing in spine surgery. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018
  10. 9(3):218-225. [CrossRef] 10. Hsu MR, Haleem MS, Hsu W. 3D printing applications in minimally invasive spine surgery. Minim Invasive Surg. 2018
  11. 4760769. [CrossRef] 11. Tan LA, Yerneni K, Tuchman A, et al. Utilization of the 3D-printed spine model for freehand pedicle screw placement in complex spinal deformity correction. J Spine Surg. 2018
  12. 4(2):319-327. [CrossRef] 12. Tong Y, Kaplan DJ, Spivak JM, Bendo JA. Three-dimensional printing in spine surgery: a review of current applications. Spine J. 2020
  13. 20(6):833-846. [CrossRef] 13. Parr WCH, Burnard JL, Wilson PJ, Mobbs RJ. 3D printed anatomical (bio)mod- els in spine surgery: clinical benefits and value to health care providers. J Spine Surg. 2019
  14. 5(4):549-560. [CrossRef] 14. Learch TJ, Massie JB, Pathria MN, Ahlgren BA, Garfin SR. Assessment of pedi- cle screw placement utilizing conventional radiography and computed tomog- raphy: a proposed systematic approach to improve accuracy of interpretation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004
  15. 29(7):767-773. [CrossRef] 15. Wiesner L, Kothe R, Rüther W. Anatomic evaluation of two different techniques for the percutaneous inser