Conceptual evolution of 3D printing in orthopedic surgery and traumatology: from "do it yourself" to "point of care manufacturing".
3D printing
Biomodels
Custom implants
Manufacturing university hospital
POC manufacturing
Preoperative planning
Surgical guides
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Apr 2021
16 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
26
05
2020
accepted:
07
04
2021
entrez:
17
4
2021
pubmed:
18
4
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
3D printing technology in hospitals facilitates production models such as point-of-care manufacturing. Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology is the specialty that can most benefit from the advantages of these tools. The purpose of this study is to present the results of the integration of 3D printing technology in a Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology and to identify the productive model of the point-of-care manufacturing as a paradigm of personalized medicine. Observational, descriptive, retrospective and monocentric study of a total of 623 additive manufacturing processes carried out in a Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology from November 2015 to March 2020. Variables such as product type, utility, time or materials for manufacture were analyzed. The areas of expertise that have performed more processes are Traumatology, Reconstructive and Orthopedic Oncology. Pre-operative planning is their primary use. Working and 3D printing hours, as well as the amount of 3D printing material used, vary according to the type of product or material delivered to perform the process. The most commonly used 3D printing material for manufacturing is polylactic acid, although biocompatible resin has been used to produce surgical guides. In addition, the hospital has worked on the co-design of customized implants with manufacturing companies. The integration of 3D printing in a Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology allows identifying the conceptual evolution from "Do-It-Yourself" to "POC manufacturing".
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
3D printing technology in hospitals facilitates production models such as point-of-care manufacturing. Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology is the specialty that can most benefit from the advantages of these tools. The purpose of this study is to present the results of the integration of 3D printing technology in a Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology and to identify the productive model of the point-of-care manufacturing as a paradigm of personalized medicine.
METHODS
METHODS
Observational, descriptive, retrospective and monocentric study of a total of 623 additive manufacturing processes carried out in a Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology from November 2015 to March 2020. Variables such as product type, utility, time or materials for manufacture were analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The areas of expertise that have performed more processes are Traumatology, Reconstructive and Orthopedic Oncology. Pre-operative planning is their primary use. Working and 3D printing hours, as well as the amount of 3D printing material used, vary according to the type of product or material delivered to perform the process. The most commonly used 3D printing material for manufacturing is polylactic acid, although biocompatible resin has been used to produce surgical guides. In addition, the hospital has worked on the co-design of customized implants with manufacturing companies.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The integration of 3D printing in a Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology allows identifying the conceptual evolution from "Do-It-Yourself" to "POC manufacturing".
Identifiants
pubmed: 33863319
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04224-6
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04224-6
pmc: PMC8051827
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
360Subventions
Organisme : Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
ID : Project PI18/01625
Références
J Surg Oncol. 2020 Mar;121(3):570-577
pubmed: 31902136
World J Orthop. 2020 Jan 18;11(1):57-67
pubmed: 31966970
Int Orthop. 2020 May;44(5):829-837
pubmed: 32170471
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Sep;45(9):1542-1546
pubmed: 28778355
Orthop Surg. 2020 Apr;12(2):471-479
pubmed: 32133781
3D Print Med. 2017;3(1):1
pubmed: 30050978
Int Orthop. 2019 Jan;43(1):123-132
pubmed: 30467646
3D Print Med. 2018 Nov 21;4(1):11
pubmed: 30649688
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Mar 13;1(5):121-127
pubmed: 28461938
Orthop Surg. 2019 Aug;11(4):533-544
pubmed: 31321905
Clin Transl Sci. 2015 Oct;8(5):594-600
pubmed: 26243449
Transl Res. 2020 Feb;216:57-76
pubmed: 31526771
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 Aug 15;26(16):e342-e348
pubmed: 30052547
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):194-201
pubmed: 30202148
Injury. 2016 Nov;47(11):2507-2511
pubmed: 27599393
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019 Mar 1;27(5):e215-e226
pubmed: 30371527
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2020 Mar 18;12(11):12557-12572
pubmed: 32092249
Hip Pelvis. 2020 Mar;32(1):1-10
pubmed: 32158723
Unfallchirurg. 2019 Apr;122(4):278-285
pubmed: 30887060
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):260-268
pubmed: 30202159
Acad Radiol. 2020 Aug;27(8):1103-1113
pubmed: 31542197
J Knee Surg. 2016 Nov;29(8):690-695
pubmed: 26907224
J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2019 Jun;13(6):925-945
pubmed: 30812062
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:2482086
pubmed: 27446944
J Vis Exp. 2020 Jan 2;(155):
pubmed: 31957749
Healthc Technol Lett. 2018 Sep 14;5(5):162-166
pubmed: 30464847