Patient-specific desktop 3D-printed guides for pelvic tumour resection surgery: a precision study on cadavers.
Acetabulum
/ surgery
Cadaver
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
/ methods
Osteotomy
/ methods
Pelvic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Pelvis
Postoperative Period
Preoperative Period
Printing, Three-Dimensional
Reference Values
Reproducibility of Results
Surgery, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Cadaveric study
Desktop 3D printing
Patient-specific instruments
Pelvic tumour
Journal
International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery
ISSN: 1861-6429
Titre abrégé: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101499225
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
17
11
2020
accepted:
03
02
2021
pubmed:
23
2
2021
medline:
5
6
2021
entrez:
22
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
3D-printed patient-specific instruments have become a useful tool to improve accuracy in pelvic tumour resections. However, their correct placement can be challenging in some regions due to the morphology of the bone, so it is essential to be aware of the possible placement errors in each region. In this study, we characterize these errors in common pelvic osteotomies. We conducted an experiment with 9 cadaveric specimens, for which we acquired a pre-operative computed tomography scan. Small PSIs were designed for each case following a realistic surgical approach for four regions of the pelvis: iliac crest (C), supra-acetabular (S), ischial (I), and pubic (P). Final surgical placement was based on a post-operative scan. The resulting positions were compared with pre-operative planning, obtaining translations, rotations, and maximum osteotomy deviations in a local reference frame defined based on the bone's morphology. Mean translations and rotations in the direction of the osteotomy plane were as follows: C = 5.3 mm, 6.7°; S = 1.8 mm, 5.1°; I = 1.5 mm, 3.4°; P = 1.8 mm, 3.5°. Mean translations in the remaining axes were below 2 mm. Maximum osteotomy deviations (75% of cases) were below 11.8 mm in C (7.8 mm for half-length), 7.8 mm in S (5.5 mm for half-length), 5.5 mm in I, and 3.7 mm in P. We have characterized placement errors for small PSIs in four regions of the pelvis. Our results show high errors in C and S PSIs in the direction of the resection plane's normal, and thus large osteotomy deviations. Deviations in short osteotomies in S, I and P and placement errors in the remaining directions were low. The PSIs used in this study are biocompatible and can be produced with a desktop 3D printer, thus minimizing manufacturing cost.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33616839
doi: 10.1007/s11548-021-02322-3
pii: 10.1007/s11548-021-02322-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
397-406Subventions
Organisme : Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
ID : PI18/01625
Organisme : Instituto de Salud Carlos III
ID : PI18/01625
Organisme : European Regional Development Fund "Una manera de hacer Europa"
ID : PI18/01625
Références
Liaw CY, Guvendiren M (2017) Current and emerging applications of 3D printing in medicine. Biofabrication. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa7279
doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/aa7279
pubmed: 28589921
Narita M, Takaki T, Shibahara T, Iwamoto M, Yakushiji T, Kamio T (2020) Utilization of desktop 3D printer-fabricated “Cost-Effective” 3D models in orthognathic surgery. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-020-00269-0
doi: 10.1186/s40902-020-00269-0
pubmed: 32821740
pmcid: 7395922
Chae MP, Rozen WM, McMenamin PG, Findlay MW, Spychal RT, Hunter-Smith DJ (2015) Emerging applications of bedside 3D printing in plastic surgery. Front Surg 2:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2015.00025
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00025
Cromeens BP, Ray WC, Hoehne B, Abayneh F, Adler B, Besner GE (2017) Facilitating surgeon understanding of complex anatomy using a three-dimensional printed model. J Surg Res 216:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.04.003
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.04.003
pubmed: 28807205
Sallent A, Vicente M, Reverté MM, Lopez A, Rodríguez-Baeza A, Pérez-Domínguez M, Velez R (2017) How 3D patient-specific instruments improve accuracy of pelvic bone tumour resection in a cadaveric study. Bone Jt Res 6:577–583. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0094.R1
doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0094.R1
Wong KC, Sze KY, Wong IOL, Wong CM, Kumta SM (2016) Patient-specific instrument can achieve same accuracy with less resection time than navigation assistance in periacetabular pelvic tumor surgery: a cadaveric study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11:307–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-015-1250-x
doi: 10.1007/s11548-015-1250-x
pubmed: 26148694
Cartiaux O, Docquier PL, Paul L, Francq BG, Cornu OH, Delloye C, Raucent B, Dehez B, Banse X (2008) Surgical inaccuracy of tumor resection and reconstruction within the pelvis: an experimental study. Acta Orthop 79:695–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670810016731
doi: 10.1080/17453670810016731
pubmed: 18839378
Ma B, Park T, Chun I, Yun K (2018) The accuracy of a 3D printing surgical guide determined by CBCT and model analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 10:279–285. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.4.279
doi: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.4.279
pubmed: 30140394
pmcid: 6104503
Brouwers L, Teutelink A, van Tilborg FAJB, de Jongh MAC, Lansink KWW, Bemelman M (2019) Validation study of 3D-printed anatomical models using 2 PLA printers for preoperative planning in trauma surgery, a human cadaver study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 45:1013–1020
doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-0970-3
Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, Buatti J, Aylward S, Miller JV, Pieper S, Kikinis R (2012) 3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging 30:1323–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
pubmed: 22770690
pmcid: 3466397
Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14:239–256. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.121791
doi: 10.1109/34.121791
Kawaguchi N, Matumoto S, Manabe J (1995) New method of evaluating the surgical margin and safety margin for musculoskeletal sarcoma, analysed on the basis of 457 surgical cases. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 121:555–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01197769
doi: 10.1007/BF01197769
pubmed: 7559736
Cleary K, Peters TM (2010) Image-guided interventions: technology review and clinical applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 12:119–142. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-070909-105249
doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-070909-105249
pubmed: 20415592
Gouin F, Paul L, Odri GA, Cartiaux O (2014) Computer-assisted planning and patient-specific instruments for bone tumor resection within the pelvis: a series of 11 patients. Sarcoma 2014:842709. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/842709
doi: 10.1155/2014/842709
pubmed: 25100921
pmcid: 4101950
Jentzsch T, Vlachopoulos L, Fürnstahl P, Müller DA, Fuchs B (2016) Tumor resection at the pelvis using three-dimensional planning and patient-specific instruments: a case series. World J Surg Oncol 14:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1006-2
doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-1006-2
García-Sevilla M, García-Mato D, Calvo-Haro J, Pérez-Mañanes R, Pascau J (2019) Optimizing navigation with patient-specific 3D printed guides in pelvic tumor resection surgery. In: Proceedings of computer assisted radiology and surgery: CARS June 18–21, 2019, Rennes, France, pp 62–64
Moreta-Martinez R, García-Mato D, García-Sevilla M, Pérez-Mañanes R, Calvo-Haro J, Pascau J (2018) Augmented reality in computer-assisted interventions based on patient-specific 3D printed reference. Healthc Technol Lett 5:162–166. https://doi.org/10.1049/htl.2018.5072
doi: 10.1049/htl.2018.5072
pubmed: 30464847
pmcid: 6222179