3D printing used in treatment of complex acetabular fractures / 中华创伤骨科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective To evaluate 3D printing used in the treatment of complex acetabular fractures.Methods Between January 2009 and December 2013,121 patients with complex acetabular fracture were treated at our department.3D printing was used in surgical planning in 53 of them,including 36 males and 17 females with an average age of 41.2 ± 10.4 years (3D group).The other 68 patients received conventional surgery without use of 3D printing,including 42 males and 26 females with an average age of 42.6 ± 8.9 years (conventional group).By the Judet-Letournel classification system,there were respectively 7 and 9 T-type fractures,4 and 6 posterior column with posterior wall fractures,21 and 28 transverse and posterior wall fractures,5 and 6 anterior with the second half transverse fractures,and 16 and 19 double column fractures.Surgical time,blood loss,transfusion,fluoroscopy times and complications were recorded in the 2 groups.At the final follow-ups,the clinical results were assessed by Merle D'Aubigné & Postel scoring and the radiographic results were assessed by Matta records.The 2 groups were similar in preoperative demographic data (P ＞ 0.05).Results In the 3D and conventional groups,respectively,surgical time was 3.5 ±O.9 hours versus 4.5 ± 1.1 hours,blood loss was 1,200.2 ±232.8 mL versus 1,550.4 ±211.6 mL,transfusion was 8.9 ± 3.8 U versus 12.3 ± 2.9 U,and fluoroscopy times were 8.7 ± 2.1 versus 11.9 ± 2.4.The differences between the 2 groups were statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05).The 3D and conventional groups were respectively followed up for 20.3 and 37.8 months on average.All the acetabular fractures healed.The time from surgery to full-weight-bearing walking averaged 3.5 months.Iatrogenic ischiadic nerve injury occurred in 5 and 7 cases and superficial infection in 3 and 5 cases in the 3D and conventional groups,respectively.No iatrogenic vascular injury,nonunion,or implant failure occurred in the 2 groups.By the Merle D' Aubigné & Postel records,the excellent and good rate was 64.2％ (34/53) in the 3D group versus 64.7％ (44/68) in the conventional group.By the Matta records,the excellent and good rate was 73.6％ (39/53) in the 3D group versus 75.0％ (51/68) in the conventional group.The differences were not statistically significant (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion Since 3D printing can contribute to better preoperative plan,it helps to lead to more accurate operation,shorter surgical time,and enhanced perioperative safety.