Application of 3D printing technique in treatment of obsolete pelvic and acetabular fractures
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-7600.2017.07.012
- VernacularTitle:3D打印技术在陈旧性骨盆髋臼骨折治疗中的应用
- Author:
Daodi QIU
;
Dongsheng ZHOU
;
Weicheng XU
;
Guoming ZHANG
;
Li FENG
;
Long CHEN
;
Jinlei SUN
- Keywords:
Pelvis;
Acetabulum;
Fractures,bone;
3D printing
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2017;19(7):624-629
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the application of 3D printing technique in the treatment of obsolete pelvic and acetabular fractures.Methods The clinical data of 23 patients with obsolete pelvic and acetabular fractures were retrospectively analyzed who had been surgically treated in our hospital from January 2006 through January 2016.3D printing technique was used in surgical planning in 11 of them,including 8 males and 3 females,with an average age of 33.8 ±4.9 years (3D group).The other 12 patients received conventional surgery without using 3D printing technique.They were 9 males and 3 females,with an average age of 34.8 ± 8.3 years (conventional group).The primary pelvic fractures in both groups were all type C according to the Tile classification system.The patients complicated with acetabular fracture in the 3D group and the conventional group were 10 and 11 cases respectively.The operative time,blood loss,blood transfusion.intraoperative fluoroscopy,visual analogue score (VAS) and Majeed score were compared between the 2 groups.Results The 2 groups were compatible in terms of preoperative general data (P ＞ 0.05).For the 3D group and the conventional group,operative time was 166.4± 24.2 min versus 222.5 ± 49.0 min.blood loss 2,063.6 ± 484.3 mL versus 2,700.0 ± 597.0 mL,blood transfusion 13.2 ± 3.2 U versus 17.6 ± 4.5 U,and intraoperative fluoroscopy 7.4 ± 1.3 times versus 11.7 ± 3.6 times.There were significant differences between the 2 groups in the above indexes (P ＜ 0.05).The 3D group and the conventional group obtained an average follow-up of 18.4 months and 21.7 months,respectively.The postoperative VAS scores were respectively 1.8 ±-0.9 points and 3.4 ± 1.0 points for the 2 groups,showing a significant between-group difference (P ＜0.05).The Majeed scores at the last follow-ups were respectively 85.7 ± 4.2 points and 84.9 ± 3.1 points for the 2 groups,showing no significant between-group difference (P ＞ 0.05).There were no such complications in the 3D group as iatrogenic nerve injury,vascular injury,nonunion or internal fixation failure.One patient in the conventional group suffered transient iatrogenic injury to the sciatic nerve.Conclusions 3D printing technique can provide helpful guidance for diagnosis and fracture classification preoperatively.It improves the patient's perioperative safety by benefiting intraoperative reduction,shortening operative time,and reducing intraoperative blood loss and intraoperative fluoroscopy.
