Department of Trauma Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
3D Lab, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Feb;50(1):37-47. doi: 10.1007/s00068-023-02415-5. Epub 2024 Jan 23.
There is a debate whether corrective osteotomies of the distal radius should be performed using a 3D work-up with pre-contoured conventional implants (i.e., of-the-shelf) or patient-specific implants (i.e., custom-made). This study aims to assess the postoperative accuracy of 3D-assisted correction osteotomy of the distal radius using either implant.
Twenty corrective osteotomies of the distal radius were planned using 3D technologies and performed on Thiel embalmed human cadavers. Our workflow consisted of virtual surgical planning and 3D printed guides for osteotomy and repositioning. Subsequently, left radii were fixated with patient-specific implants, and right radii were fixated with pre-contoured conventional implants. The accuracy of the corrections was assessed through measurement of rotation, dorsal and radial angulation and translations with postoperative CT scans in comparison to their preoperative virtual plan.
Twenty corrective osteotomies were executed according to their plan. The median differences between the preoperative plan and postoperative results were 2.6° (IQR: 1.6-3.9°) for rotation, 1.4° (IQR: 0.6-2.9°) for dorsal angulation, 4.7° (IQR: 2.9-5.7°) for radial angulation, and 2.4 mm (IQR: 1.3-2.9 mm) for translation of the distal radius, thus sufficient for application in clinical practice. There was no significant difference in accuracy of correction when comparing pre-contoured conventional implants with patient-specific implants.
3D-assisted corrective osteotomy of the distal radius with either pre-contoured conventional implants or patient-specific implants results in accurate corrections. The choice of implant type should not solely depend on accuracy of the correction, but also be based on other considerations like the availability of resources and the preoperative assessment of implant fitting.
对于桡骨远端的矫正性截骨术,究竟应该使用 3D 术前规划和预制的常规假体(即现成假体)还是使用患者特异性假体(即定制假体),目前存在争议。本研究旨在评估使用这两种假体进行桡骨远端 3D 辅助矫正截骨术的术后准确性。
使用 3D 技术对 20 例桡骨远端矫正性截骨术进行术前规划,并在 Thiel 防腐人体标本上进行手术。我们的工作流程包括虚拟手术规划和用于截骨和复位的 3D 打印导板。随后,使用患者特异性假体固定左侧桡骨,使用预制常规假体固定右侧桡骨。通过术后 CT 扫描与术前虚拟计划比较,评估矫正的准确性,测量旋转、背侧和桡侧成角以及平移。
按照计划完成了 20 例矫正性截骨术。术前计划与术后结果之间的中位数差异为:旋转 2.6°(IQR:1.6-3.9°)、背侧成角 1.4°(IQR:0.6-2.9°)、桡侧成角 4.7°(IQR:2.9-5.7°)、桡骨远端平移 2.4mm(IQR:1.3-2.9mm),足以在临床实践中应用。比较预制常规假体和患者特异性假体的矫正准确性时,无显著差异。
使用预制常规假体或患者特异性假体进行桡骨远端 3D 辅助矫正截骨术均可获得准确的矫正效果。假体类型的选择不应仅取决于矫正的准确性,还应考虑其他因素,如资源的可用性和假体适配的术前评估。