3D Printing as an Aid in Acetabular Defects Compared to Established Diagnostics – a Survey

Abstract

Introduction

The treatment of acetabular defects in revision arthroplasty is an increasing challenge. Different classifications have been introduced for preoperative planning to achieve the best possible result. 3D printing is a way to better visualize and understand these defects. The aim of this study was to facilitate classification, provide young doctors with a better understanding of complex defects, and ultimately improve preoperative planning and patient safety.

Methods

The study was conducted at the 2022 BOUT congress, where health care professionals were provided with X-rays, a computed tomography (CT) scan, and a 3D print to classify acetabulums according to Paprosky and ADC. A questionnaire was administered to gather information on their familiarity with the classification systems and perception of 3D models in the clinic.

Results

The study involved 14 participants, mostly resident physicians, with some familiarity with the Paprosky and ADC classifications. The 3D printing method resulted in the highest rate of correct classifications for acetabular defects compared to X-ray and CT imaging. Participants found the 3D model useful for clinical applications and rated it higher than X-ray and CT imaging for classifying acetabular defects.

Conclusion

Acetabular defects present a challenge in assessment, preoperative planning, and surgical management due to their complex anatomy. Overall, we were able to show that the use of a 3D model increases the accuracy in the classification of acetabular defects. The use of 3D printing in orthopedics and trauma surgery is showing more and more advantages and has opened up new methods for the education of medical students and young surgeons.

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung

Die Behandlung von Acetabulumdefekten in der Revisionsendoprothetik stellt eine zunehmende Herausforderung dar. Verschiedene Klassifikationen wurden eingeführt, um die präoperative Planung zu optimieren und das bestmögliche Ergebnis zu erzielen. Der 3-D-Druck bietet eine Möglichkeit, diese Defekte besser zu visualisieren und zu verstehen. Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Klassifikation zu erleichtern, jungen Ärzten ein besseres Verständnis komplexer Defekte zu vermitteln und letztendlich die präoperative Planung und Patientensicherheit zu verbessern.

Methoden

Die Studie wurde auf dem BOUT-Kongress 2022 durchgeführt, wo Gesundheitsfachkräften Röntgenbilder, eine CT-Aufnahme und ein 3-D-Modell zur Verfügung gestellt wurden, um Acetabula gemäß den Klassifikationen von Paprosky und ADC zu klassifizieren. Ein Fragebogen wurde verwendet, um Informationen über ihre Vertrautheit mit den Klassifikationssystemen und ihre Wahrnehmung von 3-D-Modellen in der Klinik zu sammeln.

Ergebnisse

An der Studie nahmen 14 Teilnehmer, hauptsächlich Assistenzärzte, teil, die teilweise mit den Klassifikationen von Paprosky und ADC vertraut waren. Die Methode des 3-D-Drucks führte im Vergleich zu Röntgen- und CT-Bildern zur höchsten Rate an korrekten Klassifikationen für Acetabulumdefekte. Die Teilnehmer fanden das 3-D-Modell für die klinische Anwendung nützlich und bewerteten es höher als Röntgen- und CT-Bildgebung für die Klassifizierung von Acetabulumdefekten.

Schlussfolgerung

Acetabulumdefekte stellen aufgrund ihrer komplexen Anatomie eine Herausforderung in der Bewertung, präoperativen Planung und chirurgischen Behandlung dar. Insgesamt konnten wir zeigen, dass die Verwendung eines 3-D-Modells die Genauigkeit in der Klassifikation von Acetabulumdefekten erhöht. Der Einsatz von 3-D-Druck in der Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie zeigt immer mehr Vorteile und hat neue Methoden für die Ausbildung von Medizinstudierenden und jungen Chirurgen eröffnet.

Keywords

acetabular defects - revision arthroplasty - 3D printing - orthopedic surgery - medical imaging

Schlüsselwörter

Acetabulumdefekte - Revisionsendoprothetik - 3-D-Druck - orthopädische Chirurgie - medizinische Bildgebung

Publication History

Received: 15 January 2024

Accepted after revision: 22 November 2024

Article published online:
14 January 2025

• References

• 1 Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370: 1508-1519
• 2 Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W. et al. Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93: 293-297
• 3 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E. et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 780-785
• 4 Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Paprosky WG. Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2013; 21: 601-612
• 5 Sculco PK, Wright T, Malahias MA. et al. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium. HSS J 2022; 18: 8-41
• 6 Goldman AH, Sierra RJ, Trousdale RT. et al. The Lawrence D. Dorr Surgical Techniques & Technologies Award: Why Are Contemporary Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties Failing? An Analysis of 2500 Cases. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34(7 Suppl.): S11-S16
• 7 Rajaee SS, Campbell JC, Mirocha J. et al. Increasing Burden of Total Hip Arthroplasty Revisions in Patients Between 45 and 64 Years of Age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100: 449-458
• 8 Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota RE. et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 1076-1081
• 9 Telleria JJM, Gee AO. Classifications in brief: Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 3725-3730
• 10 Fryhofer GW, Ramesh S, Sheth NP. Acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020; 11: 22-28
• 11 Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9: 33-44
• 12 Wirtz DC, Jaenisch M, Osterhaus TA. et al. Acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty: a therapy-oriented classification. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020; 140: 815-825
• 13 Wong TM, Jin J, Lau TW. et al. The use of three-dimensional printing technology in orthopaedic surgery: a review. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2017; 25: 230949901668407
• 14 Baskaran V, Štrkalj G, Štrkalj M. et al. Current Applications and Future Perspectives of the Use of 3D Printing in Anatomical Training and Neurosurgery. Front Neuroanat 2016; 10: 69
• 15 Krettek C. 3D-Druck in der Unfallchirurgie: Deutschland hängt massiv hinterher. Unfallchirurg 2022; 125: 339-341
• 16 Krettek C, Bruns N. [Current concepts and new developments of 3D printing in trauma surgery]. Unfallchirurg 2019; 122: 256-269
• 17 Schierjott RA, Hettich G, Graichen H. et al. Quantitative assessment of acetabular bone defects: A study of 50 computed tomography data sets. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0222511
• 18 Horas K, Arnholdt J, Steinert AF. et al. Acetabular defect classification in times of 3D imaging and patient-specific treatment protocols. Orthopade 2017; 46: 168-178
• 19 Lim PK, Stephenson GS, Keown TW. et al. Use of 3D Printed Models in Resident Education for the Classification of Acetabulum Fractures. J Surg Educ 2018; 75: 1679-1684
• 20 Fang C, Cai H, Kuong E. et al. Surgical applications of three-dimensional printing in the pelvis and acetabulum: from models and tools to implants. Unfallchirurg 2019; 122: 278-285
• 21 Bagaria V, Deshpande S, Rasalkar DD. et al. Use of rapid prototyping and three-dimensional reconstruction modeling in the management of complex fractures. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80: 814-820
• 22 Bagaria V, Chaudhary K. A paradigm shift in surgical planning and simulation using 3Dgraphy: Experience of first 50 surgeries done using 3D-printed biomodels. Injury 2017; 48: 2501-2508