Clinical application of 3D-printed patient-specific guide plate combined with computer navigation in acetabular reconstruction following resection of periacetabular tumors.
Guide plate
acetabular positioning
hemipelvic reconstruction
navigation
Journal
Annals of translational medicine
ISSN: 2305-5839
Titre abrégé: Ann Transl Med
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101617978
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
03
11
2021
accepted:
13
01
2022
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The precise acetabular reconstruction has historically been a challenging procedure. 3D-printed patient-specific guide (PSG) and computer navigation (CN) technologies have been used to assist acetabular component positioning and pelvic reconstruction. This precise reconstruction approach may translate into clinical benefit. The clinical data of 84 patients who underwent periacetabular malignant tumor resection and screw-rod-acetabular cage system reconstruction in our center from January 2013 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into four groups: free hand (FH) group, PSG group, CN group, and PSG combined with computer navigation (PSG + CN) group. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and number of fluoroscopy views were recorded. The oncological prognosis, radiographic measurements of the acetabulum, limb function data, and postoperative complications were compared among groups. And finally, we evaluated the risk factors for mechanical failure of the prosthesis. The postoperative X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scan revealed that the vertical offset discrepancy (VOD) between affected side and contralateral side was 8.4±1.9, 5.9±2.2, 4.1±1.3, and 2.4±1.2 mm in each groups; the horizontal offset discrepancy (HOD) was 9.0±1.9, 6.1±2.2, 3.2±1.3, and 2.1±1.2 mm, correspondingly; the abduction angle discrepancy (ABAD) was 8.6°±1.8°, 5.6°±2.0°, 2.5°±1.3°, and 1.8°±0.9°, respectively; the anteversion angle discrepancy (ANAD) was 5.9°±1.6°, 3.6°±1.7°, 2.9°±1.6°, and 1.9°±0.9°, correspondingly. Statistical results show that the PSG + CN group was superior to the FH group and the PSG group in terms of acetabular position and limb function (P<0.05). Body mass index (P=0.040) and resection type (P=0.042) were found to be the high-risk factors for mechanical failure of the prosthesis. PSG + CN has potential advantages in improving the accuracy and safety of acetabular positioning and reconstruction.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The precise acetabular reconstruction has historically been a challenging procedure. 3D-printed patient-specific guide (PSG) and computer navigation (CN) technologies have been used to assist acetabular component positioning and pelvic reconstruction. This precise reconstruction approach may translate into clinical benefit.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
The clinical data of 84 patients who underwent periacetabular malignant tumor resection and screw-rod-acetabular cage system reconstruction in our center from January 2013 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into four groups: free hand (FH) group, PSG group, CN group, and PSG combined with computer navigation (PSG + CN) group. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and number of fluoroscopy views were recorded. The oncological prognosis, radiographic measurements of the acetabulum, limb function data, and postoperative complications were compared among groups. And finally, we evaluated the risk factors for mechanical failure of the prosthesis.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The postoperative X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scan revealed that the vertical offset discrepancy (VOD) between affected side and contralateral side was 8.4±1.9, 5.9±2.2, 4.1±1.3, and 2.4±1.2 mm in each groups; the horizontal offset discrepancy (HOD) was 9.0±1.9, 6.1±2.2, 3.2±1.3, and 2.1±1.2 mm, correspondingly; the abduction angle discrepancy (ABAD) was 8.6°±1.8°, 5.6°±2.0°, 2.5°±1.3°, and 1.8°±0.9°, respectively; the anteversion angle discrepancy (ANAD) was 5.9°±1.6°, 3.6°±1.7°, 2.9°±1.6°, and 1.9°±0.9°, correspondingly. Statistical results show that the PSG + CN group was superior to the FH group and the PSG group in terms of acetabular position and limb function (P<0.05). Body mass index (P=0.040) and resection type (P=0.042) were found to be the high-risk factors for mechanical failure of the prosthesis.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
PSG + CN has potential advantages in improving the accuracy and safety of acetabular positioning and reconstruction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35282055
doi: 10.21037/atm-21-7013
pii: atm-10-02-76
pmc: PMC8848447
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
76Informations de copyright
2022 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-21-7013/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Feb 8;16(1):119
pubmed: 33557910
J Surg Oncol. 2019 Nov;120(6):985-993
pubmed: 31381161
Surg Oncol. 2010 Jun;19(2):95-105
pubmed: 19467585
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Nov;478(11):2487-2501
pubmed: 32420722
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Nov;92(11):1568-73
pubmed: 21037354
Adv Orthop. 2015;2015:617046
pubmed: 25709843
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Mar;89(3):579-87
pubmed: 17332107
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;28(1):363-375
pubmed: 32572853
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Apr;(409):209-17
pubmed: 12671504
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013 Jan;39(1):53-60
pubmed: 23131428
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Dec;139(12):1699-1704
pubmed: 31127409
Bone Joint J. 2017 Feb;99-B(2):261-266
pubmed: 28148671
J Orthop Translat. 2021 Jun 24;29:152-162
pubmed: 34249613
Oncol Lett. 2017 Oct;14(4):4581-4584
pubmed: 29085456
Sarcoma. 2014;2014:842709
pubmed: 25100921
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Mar;(396):197-205
pubmed: 11859244
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb;34(2):338-345.e1
pubmed: 30497901
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Sep;(270):149-58
pubmed: 1884534
Bone Joint J. 2017 Feb;99-B(2):267-275
pubmed: 28148672
Comput Aided Surg. 2007 Jul;12(4):225-32
pubmed: 17786598
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jan;471(1):324-31
pubmed: 23054524
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 May;(326):238-45
pubmed: 8620647
Bone Joint Res. 2017 Oct;6(10):577-583
pubmed: 29054990
PLoS One. 2015 May 26;10(5):e0127263
pubmed: 26011448
Yonsei Med J. 2017 Mar;58(2):453-457
pubmed: 28120579
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Dec;19(13):4043-51
pubmed: 22948770
World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep 21;14(1):249
pubmed: 27729037
J Surg Oncol. 2011 Mar 1;103(3):269-75
pubmed: 21337556
J Surg Oncol. 2001 Oct;78(2):90-100
pubmed: 11579386
Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2005 Apr;14(2):381-96
pubmed: 15817245
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Sep;79(5):773-9
pubmed: 9331034
Acta Orthop Scand. 1996 Aug;67(4):333-8
pubmed: 8792734
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jun;90(6):1265-71
pubmed: 18519320