Efficacy comparison of 3D printing technology-assisted and conventional open reduction and internal fixation for multiple rib fracture
10.3760/cma.j.cn501098-20220426-00309
- VernacularTitle:3D打印技术辅助与常规切开复位内固定治疗多发肋骨骨折的疗效比较
- Author:
Jieshi LI
1
;
Qianshun CHEN
;
Xunyu XU
;
Yimeng ZHUO
;
Zhong LI
;
Chen HUANG
;
Lilan ZHAO
Author Information
1. 福建医科大学附属闽东医院胸外科，福安 355000
- Keywords:
Rib fractures;
Printing, three-dimensional;
Fracture fixation, internal;
Quality of life
- From:
Chinese Journal of Trauma
2022;38(11):985-991
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy of 3D printing technology-assisted and conventional open reduction and internal fixation of multiple rib fracture.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 61 patients with multiple rib fracture admitted to Mindong Hospital Affiliated to Fujian Medical University and Fujian Provincial Hospital from July 2018 to March 2020. There were 44 males and 17 females, with age range of 18-73 years [(45.1±12.9)years]. Unilateral lung contusion and laceration occurred in 31 patients, while bilateral in 30. There were 19 patients accompanied by hempneumothorax and 16 by flail chest. Totally, 31 patients received 3D printing technology assisted open reduction and internal fixation (3D-assisted incision group) and 30 patients received conventional open reduction and internal fixation (conventional incision group). The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative 3-day visual analogue scale (VAS), duration of pain, indwelling time of chest tube, total length of hospital stay, postoperative bone callus formation time and rate of rib bone plate loosening were comapared in two groups. The short form 36 health survey (SF-36) score (ie, physical function, physical function, physical pain, general health, energy, social function, emotional function, mental health) preoperatively, at postoperative 6-month and at the last follow-up was compareted between two groups. Complications were observed at the same time.Results:All patients were followed up for 18-38 months [(26.4±5.5)months]. In 3D-assisted incision group, the incision length was (5.9±1.3)cm, with operation time for (84.6±7.8)minutes, intraoperative blood loss for (85.5±13.9)ml, postoperative 3-day VAS for (2.5±0.5)points, duration of pain for (5.9±0.7)days, indwelling time of chest tube for (3.4±0.7)days, total length of hospital stay for (7.0±1.0)days, postoperative callus formation time for (2.6±0.7)weeks and rate of rib bone plate loosening for 3.2%(1/31). By contrast, in conventional incision group, the incision length was (10.9±2.4)cm, with operation time for (127.1±12.5)minutes, intraoperative blood loss for (183.0±30.9)ml, postoperative 3-day VAS for (6.5±0.9)points, duration of pain for (11.2±1.8)days, indwelling time of chest tube for (7.8±0.8)days, total length of hospital stay for (15.1±1.2)days, postoperative callus formation time for (4.6±0.8)weeks and rate of rib bone plate loosening for 20.0%(6/30) ( P<0.05 or 0.01). There was no significant difference in preoperative SF-36 score between the two groups ( P>0.05). At 6 months after surgery, the subscores of SF-36 in 3D-assisted incision group were higher than those in conventional incision group except for "mental health" ( P<0.05 or 0.01). At the last follow-up, all the subscores of SF-36 in 3D-assisted incision group were higher than those in conventional incision group ( P<0.05 or 0.01). There were no obvious complications such as pulmonary infection or atelectasis. Conclusions:For multiple rib fracture, 3D printing technology-assisted open reduction and internal fixation is superior to conventional open reduction and internal fixation for it can shorten incision length, operation time, indwelling time of chest tube, total length of hospital stay and postoperative bone callus formation time, reduce intraoperative blood loss, relieve postoperative pain, reduce rate of rib bone plate loosening and improve quality of life of the patients.
