Literature DB >> 29992449

Designing patient-specific solutions using biomodelling and 3D-printing for revision lumbar spine surgery.

Ganesha K Thayaparan1,2, Mark G Owbridge3, Robert G Thompson3, Paul S D'Urso4,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Despite the variety of "off-the-shelf" implants and instrumentation, outcomes following revision lumbosacral surgery are inconstant. Revision fusion surgery presents a unique set of patient-specific challenges that may not be adequately addressed using universal kits. This study aims to describe how patient-specific factors, surgeon requirements, and healthcare efficiencies were integrated to design and manufacture anatomically matched surgical tools and implants to complement a minimally invasive posterior approach for revision lumbar fusion surgery.
METHODS: A 72-year-old woman presented with sciatica and a complex L5-S1 pseudoarthrosis 12 months after L2-S1 fixation surgery for symptomatic degenerative scoliosis. Patient computed tomography data were used to develop 1:1 scale biomodels of the bony lumbosacral spine for pre-operative planning, patient education, and intraoperative reference. The surgeon collaborated with engineers and developed a patient-specific 3D-printed titanium lumbosacral fixation implant secured by L2-L5, S2, and iliac screws. Sizes and trajectories for the S2 and iliac screws were simulated using biomodelling to develop a stereotactic 3D-printed drill guide. Self-docking 3D-printed nylon tubular retractors specific to patient tissue depth and bony anatomy at L5-S1 were developed for a minimally invasive transforaminal approach. The pre-selected screws were separately sourced, bundled with the patient-specific devices, and supplied as a kit to the hospital before surgery.
RESULTS: At 6-month follow-up, the patient reported resolution of symptoms. No evidence of implant dysfunction was observed on radiography.
CONCLUSION: Pre-operative planning combined with biomodelling and 3D printing is a viable process that enables surgical techniques, equipment, and implants to meet patient and surgeon-specific requirements for revision lumbar fusion surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D printing; Biomodelling; Lumbosacral; Patient specific; Revision

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29992449     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5684-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  17 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Kevin T Foley; Langston T Holly; James D Schwender
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The effects of rod contouring on spinal construct fatigue strength.

Authors:  Colleen Lindsey; Vedat Deviren; Zheng Xu; Ru-Fang Yeh; Christian M Puttlitz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Biomodeling as an aid to spinal instrumentation.

Authors:  Paul S D'Urso; Owen D Williamson; Robert G Thompson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008.

Authors:  Sean S Rajaee; Hyun W Bae; Linda E A Kanim; Rick B Delamarter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 1: introduction and methodology.

Authors:  Michael G Kaiser; Jason C Eck; Michael W Groff; William C Watters; Andrew T Dailey; Daniel K Resnick; Tanvir F Choudhri; Alok Sharan; Jeffrey C Wang; Praveen V Mummaneni; Sanjay S Dhall; Zoher Ghogawala
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2014-07

6.  Spinal biomodeling.

Authors:  P S D'Urso; G Askin; J S Earwaker; G S Merry; R G Thompson; T M Barker; D J Effeney
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Factors predicting hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion in patients undergoing revision posterior lumbar spine decompression, fusion, and segmental instrumentation.

Authors:  Fengyu Zheng; Frank P Cammisa; Harvinder S Sandhu; Federico P Girardi; Safdar N Khan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology?

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Sohail K Mirza; Bryan A Comstock; Darryl T Gray; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of revision fusion for lumbar pseudoarthrosis: defining the value of surgery.

Authors:  Owoicho Adogwa; Scott L Parker; David Shau; Stephen K Mendelhall; Oran Aaronson; Joseph Cheng; Clinton J Devin; Matthew J McGirt
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2015-04

10.  Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study.

Authors:  Chusheng Seng; Mashfiqul A Siddiqui; Kenneth P L Wong; Karen Zhang; William Yeo; Seang Beng Tan; Wai-Mun Yue
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  2 in total

1.  Virtual Scoliosis Surgery Using a 3D-Printed Model Based on Biplanar Radiographs.

Authors:  Aurélien Courvoisier; Antonio Cebrian; Julien Simon; Pascal Désauté; Benjamin Aubert; Célia Amabile; Lucie Thiébaut
Journal:  Bioengineering (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-14

2.  Patient-specific implants for craniomaxillofacial surgery: A manufacturer's experience.

Authors:  Ganesha K Thayaparan; Philip M Lewis; Robert G Thompson; Paul S D'Urso
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2021-06-02
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.