Ganesha K Thayaparan1,2, Mark G Owbridge3, Robert G Thompson3, Paul S D'Urso4,3. 1. Department of Neurosciences Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Victoria, Australia. ganesha.thayaparan@gmail.com. 2. The Epworth Centre, Suite 7, Level 8, 32 Erin Street, Richmond, Victoria, 3121, Australia. ganesha.thayaparan@gmail.com. 3. Anatomics Pty Ltd, St Kilda, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Neurosciences Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Victoria, Australia.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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