Yiting Lou1, Leyi Cai1, Chenggui Wang1, Qian Tang1, Tianlong Pan1, Xiaoshan Guo2, Jianshun Wang3. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 109 Xue Yuan Xi Road, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325000, China. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 109 Xue Yuan Xi Road, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325000, China. guoxiaoshan888@yahoo.com.cn. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 109 Xue Yuan Xi Road, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325000, China. wjszdl@aliyun.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to compare traditional surgery and surgery assisted by 3D printing technology in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures. In addition, we also investigated the effect of 3D printing technology on the communication between doctors and patients. METHODS: Seventy two patients with tibial plateau fractures were enrolled in the study from April 2014 to October 2015. They were divided into two groups: 34 cases of 3D model group, 38 cases of traditional surgery group. The individual models were used to simulate the surgical procedures and carry out the surgery according to plan. Operation time, blood loss, and number of intra-operative fluoroscopy were recorded. Through the follow-up, the recovery of patients were observed. Besides, we designed questionnaires to verify the satisfaction for both surgeons and patients. RESULTS: The average operation time, average amount of blood loss, and number of intra-operative fluoroscopy for 3D model group was 85.2±0.9 minutes, 186.3± 5.5ml, 5.3± 0.2 times, and for traditional surgery group was 99.2±1.0 minutes, 216.2 ±6.9 ml,7.1 ± 0.2 times respectively. There was statistically significant difference between the traditional surgery group and 3D model group (P < 0.05). Via follow-up, we can see that the 3D printing group has a better clinical efficacy. The average score of the questionnaires to Patient and doctors were 7.3 ± 0.1 points and 8.5± 0.1 points respectively. CONCLUSION: This study suggested the clinical feasibility of 3D printing technology in treatment of tibial plateau fractures.
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to compare traditional surgery and surgery assisted by 3D printing technology in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures. In addition, we also investigated the effect of 3D printing technology on the communication between doctors and patients. METHODS: Seventy two patients with tibial plateau fractures were enrolled in the study from April 2014 to October 2015. They were divided into two groups: 34 cases of 3D model group, 38 cases of traditional surgery group. The individual models were used to simulate the surgical procedures and carry out the surgery according to plan. Operation time, blood loss, and number of intra-operative fluoroscopy were recorded. Through the follow-up, the recovery of patients were observed. Besides, we designed questionnaires to verify the satisfaction for both surgeons and patients. RESULTS: The average operation time, average amount of blood loss, and number of intra-operative fluoroscopy for 3D model group was 85.2±0.9 minutes, 186.3± 5.5ml, 5.3± 0.2 times, and for traditional surgery group was 99.2±1.0 minutes, 216.2 ±6.9 ml,7.1 ± 0.2 times respectively. There was statistically significant difference between the traditional surgery group and 3D model group (P < 0.05). Via follow-up, we can see that the 3D printing group has a better clinical efficacy. The average score of the questionnaires to Patient and doctors were 7.3 ± 0.1 points and 8.5± 0.1 points respectively. CONCLUSION: This study suggested the clinical feasibility of 3D printing technology in treatment of tibial plateau fractures.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D printing; Questionnaire; Surgery simulation; Tibial plateau fracture
Authors: David P Barei; Sean E Nork; William J Mills; M Bradford Henley; Stephen K Benirschke Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Nick Assink; Inge H F Reininga; Kaj Ten Duis; Job N Doornberg; Harm Hoekstra; Joep Kraeima; Max J H Witjes; Jean-Paul P M de Vries; Frank F A IJpma Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: Gemma Traynor; Andrew Iu Shearn; Elena G Milano; Maria Victoria Ordonez; Mari Nieves Velasco Forte; Massimo Caputo; Silvia Schievano; Hannah Mustard; Jo Wray; Giovanni Biglino Journal: J 3D Print Med Date: 2022-01-19
Authors: Lauren Schlegel; Michelle Ho; J Matthew Fields; Erik Backlund; Robert Pugliese; Kristy M Shine Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 3.263
Authors: Hongyang Ma; Sohaib Shujaat; Jeroen Van Dessel; Yi Sun; Michel Bila; Jan Vranckx; Constantinus Politis; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Gene Kitamura; Marcio Bottene Villa Albers; Bryson P Lesniak; Stephen Joseph Rabuck; Volker Musahl; Carol L Andrews; Anish Ghodadra; Freddie Fu Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2019-09-26