Upper cervical spine reconstruction using customized 3D-printed vertebral body in 9 patients with primary tumors involving C2.

3D printing Patient-specific implant primary spine tumor spinal reconstruction total spondylectomy

Journal

Annals of translational medicine
ISSN: 2305-5839
Titre abrégé: Ann Transl Med
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101617978

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Historique:
entrez: 2 5 2020
pubmed: 2 5 2020
medline: 2 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Reconstruction following resection of the primary tumors of the upper cervical spine is challenging, and conventional internal implants develop complications in this region. 3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, can produce patient-specific porous implants in a particular shape for bone defect reconstruction. This study aimed to describe the clinical outcomes of upper cervical spine reconstruction using customized 3D-printed vertebral body in 9 patients with primary tumors involving C2. Patients with primary tumors involving C2 who were treated in our institution between July 2014 and November 2018 were enrolled. A two-stage intralesional spondylectomy was performed using the posterior-anterior approach. Anterior reconstruction was accomplished using a customized 3D-printed vertebral body, which was fabricated by successive layering of melted titanium alloy powder using electron beam melting. No bone graft was used. Nine patients (2 males and 7 females) were included in the study with a mean age of 31.4 years (12 to 59 years). Seven patients demonstrated tumors located in C2 and 2 showed involvement of C2 and C3. During a mean follow-up of 28.6 months (range, 12-42 months), 1 patient died of systemic metastasis and 1 had local tumor recurrence, the other 7 patients were alive and functional in their daily living until the last follow-up without evidence of disease. The 3D-printed vertebral bodies were all stable with no sign of displacement or subsidence, evidence of implant osseointegration was observed on the imaging studies. For the posterior instrumentation systems, no screw loosening or rod breakage was found. Spinal reconstruction in the upper cervical region using customized 3D-printed vertebral body is reliable. The tailored shape matching with the contact surfaces and the porous structure conductive to osseointegration provide both short- and long-term stability to the implant.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Reconstruction following resection of the primary tumors of the upper cervical spine is challenging, and conventional internal implants develop complications in this region. 3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, can produce patient-specific porous implants in a particular shape for bone defect reconstruction. This study aimed to describe the clinical outcomes of upper cervical spine reconstruction using customized 3D-printed vertebral body in 9 patients with primary tumors involving C2.
METHODS METHODS
Patients with primary tumors involving C2 who were treated in our institution between July 2014 and November 2018 were enrolled. A two-stage intralesional spondylectomy was performed using the posterior-anterior approach. Anterior reconstruction was accomplished using a customized 3D-printed vertebral body, which was fabricated by successive layering of melted titanium alloy powder using electron beam melting. No bone graft was used.
RESULTS RESULTS
Nine patients (2 males and 7 females) were included in the study with a mean age of 31.4 years (12 to 59 years). Seven patients demonstrated tumors located in C2 and 2 showed involvement of C2 and C3. During a mean follow-up of 28.6 months (range, 12-42 months), 1 patient died of systemic metastasis and 1 had local tumor recurrence, the other 7 patients were alive and functional in their daily living until the last follow-up without evidence of disease. The 3D-printed vertebral bodies were all stable with no sign of displacement or subsidence, evidence of implant osseointegration was observed on the imaging studies. For the posterior instrumentation systems, no screw loosening or rod breakage was found.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Spinal reconstruction in the upper cervical region using customized 3D-printed vertebral body is reliable. The tailored shape matching with the contact surfaces and the porous structure conductive to osseointegration provide both short- and long-term stability to the implant.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32355776
doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.03.32
pii: atm-08-06-332
pmc: PMC7186708
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

332

Informations de copyright

2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest: NX serves as an unpaid section editor member of Annals of Translational Medicine from Oct 2019 to Sep 2020. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Références

J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Aug;30:157-160
pubmed: 26972706
Neurosurgery. 2010 Jan;66(1):59-65; discussion 65
pubmed: 20023538
J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Feb;2(2):199-205
pubmed: 15739534
Eur Spine J. 2016 Dec;25(12):4080-4087
pubmed: 27262560
J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jun;6(6):611-8
pubmed: 17561755
Eur Spine J. 2018 Dec;27(12):3073-3083
pubmed: 30039254
J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 May;4(5):409-14
pubmed: 16703909
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Jan;41(1):E50-4
pubmed: 26335676
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Aug;19(2):232-42
pubmed: 23768022
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Sep 1;26(17):1936-41
pubmed: 11568710
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Apr 15;39(8):E486-92
pubmed: 24430723
J Spinal Cord Med. 2011 Nov;34(6):535-46
pubmed: 22330108
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Mar;(204):9-24
pubmed: 3456859
Eur Spine J. 2017 Jul;26(7):1902-1909
pubmed: 27844229
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016 Jul 20;8(28):17964-75
pubmed: 27341499
Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5(6):649-55
pubmed: 7165009
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 May 15;35(11):E505-9
pubmed: 20421861
J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 May;12(5):517-24
pubmed: 20441484
World Neurosurg. 2019 Jun;126:e1050-e1054
pubmed: 30878743
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 Jun;15(6):399-401
pubmed: 29848086
Spine J. 2019 Dec;19(12):1941-1949
pubmed: 31306757
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008 Oct;21(7):489-92
pubmed: 18836360
Acta Biomater. 2011 May;7(5):2327-36
pubmed: 21295166
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Jan 15;43(2):81-88
pubmed: 26020844
Neurol Res. 2014 Jun;36(6):557-65
pubmed: 24716731
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Nov 15;36(24):E1581-7
pubmed: 22048652
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010 Dec;23(8):e53-8
pubmed: 21131798
Spine J. 2019 Oct;19(10):1613-1619
pubmed: 31059817

Auteurs

Feng Wei (F)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Zhehuang Li (Z)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Zhongjun Liu (Z)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Xiaoguang Liu (X)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Liang Jiang (L)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Miao Yu (M)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Nanfang Xu (N)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Fengliang Wu (F)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Lei Dang (L)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Hua Zhou (H)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Zihe Li (Z)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Hong Cai (H)

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Classifications MeSH