Patient-Specific 3-Dimensional-Printed Orthopedic Implants and Surgical Devices Are Potential Alternatives to Conventional Technology But Require Additional Characterization
- Author:
Aidan P. MCANENA
1
;
Taylor MCCLENNEN
;
Hua ZHENG
Author Information
- Publication Type:Review Article
- From:Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):1-15
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Three-dimensional (3D) printing allows anatomical models, guides, and implants to be easily customized to individual patients. Three-dimensional–printed devices can be used for a number of purposes in the medical field, yet there is a lack of data on the implementation of 3D-printed patient-specific implants and surgical guides in orthopedics. The objective of this review of the literature was to summarize the implementation of 3D printing in orthopedic surgery and identify areas that require more investigation.
Methods:PubMed and Scopus were used to perform a literature search. Articles that described 3D-printed patient-specific orthopedic implants or intraoperative guides were reviewed. Relevant articles were compiled and summarized to determine the role of personalized 3D-printed implants in orthopedic surgery.
Results:A total of 58 papers were selected. Overall, 3D-printed implants and surgical guides were shown to be effective in the selected cases. Patients with bone tumors benefitted from custom 3D-printed implants, which allow aggressive resection while preserving the function and mechanical stability of the limb. Eighty-one percent of devices were made using titanium, and 48% of articles reported the use of 3D printing in oncology. Some reported adverse events including wound dehiscence, periprosthetic infection, dislocation, and sequelae of malignancy. Regulations surrounding the use of 3D-printed surgical devices are ambiguous.
Conclusions:Three-dimensional–printed orthopedic implants and guides present an alternative to commercial devices, as they allow for customizability that is useful in cases of anatomic complexity. A variety of materials were surveyed across multiple subspecialties. Large controlled studies are necessary to compare patient-specific implants with the standard of care and evaluate their safety profiles over time.
