| Literature DB >> 30119637 |
Qiuke Wang1, Jian Hu2, Junjie Guan1, Yunfeng Chen3, Lei Wang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To explore the clinical efficacy of 3D printing fracture models to assist in creating pre-contoured plates to treat proximal third humeral shaft fractures.Entities:
Keywords: 3D-printed; Helical plate; Humeral fracture; MIPO
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30119637 PMCID: PMC6098615 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0908-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Pre-operative preparation of an old female patient. (a) A long helical PHILOS plate was pre-contoured on an intact 3D-printed model (b). (b) An intact 3D-printed model which was constructed by the mirror image of the contralateral side. (c) A 3D-printed model of the fractured bone. (d) A Synbone model
Fig. 2Surgical procedure. a An anterolateral acromial approach (ALA) was performed with a 5-cm skin incision proximally. b The site of distal approach was decided according to the length of the pre-contoured plate (red arrow). c Two approaches were made. d An extraperiosteal tunnel was made to connect both approaches, and the plate was placed with MIPO technique
Baseline characteristics of the Synbone group and 3D-printed group
| Synbone group | 3D-printed group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 71.84 ± 4.81 | 71.00 ± 5.81 | 0.594 |
| Gender | 0.695 | ||
| Male | 7 (28%) | 7 (33.3%) | |
| Female | 18 (72%) | 14 (66.7%) | |
| Proximal humerus involved | 0.845 | ||
| Yes | 10 (40%) | 9 (42.9%) | |
| No | 15 (60%) | 12 (57.1%) | |
| Fracture type (AO/OTA) | 0.782 | ||
| A | 4 (8.7%) | 3 (6.5%) | |
| B | 13 (28.3%) | 13 (28.3%) | |
| C | 8 (17.4%) | 5 (10.9%) | |
| Follow-up months | 18.48 ± 6.25 | 16.95 ± 5.12 | 0.367 |
Outcomes of the Synbone group and 3D-printed group
| Synbone group | 3D-printed group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to fracture union (weeks) | 16.16 ± 3.65 | 15.70 ± 2.96 | 0.976 |
| Constant-Murley score | 76.80 ± 6.67 | 76.95 ± 6.03 | 0.936 |
| MEPS score | 96.80 ± 3.79 | 94.32 ± 4.02 | 0.928 |
| Duration of surgery (min) | 60.36 ± 10.20 | 42.62 ± 7.61 | 0.001* |
| Blood loss volume (ml) | 120.80 ± 10.61 | 105.19 ± 14.67 | 0.001* |
| Surgeon | |||
| Senior attending doctor | 25 | 9 | |
| Junior attending doctor | 0 | 12 |
*Differences are statistically significant
Fig. 3A patient, suffered proximal third humeral shaft fracture from a simple fall, was allocated to the 3D-printed group. a Pre-operative X-ray examination. b The first day after surgery. c The completely healed fracture at 1-year follow-up
Outcomes of the two grades of surgeons of the 3D-printed group
| Senior attending doctor | Junior attending doctor | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 70.56 ± 6.02 | 71.33 ± 5.88 | 0.770 |
| Gender (male/female) | 2/7 | 5/7 | 0.642 |
| Fracture type (A/B/C) | 2/4/3 | 1/9/2 | 0.355 |
| Proximal humerus involved (yes/no) | 5/4 | 7/5 | 0.899 |
| Time to fracture union (weeks) | 15.78 ± 2.11 | 16.50 ± 3.53 | 0.593 |
| Constant-Murley score | 77.33 ± 6.75 | 76.67 ± 5.74 | 0.809 |
| MEPS score | 97.22 ± 2.63 | 96.67 ± 4.92 | 0.763 |
| Duration of surgery (min) | 39.89 ± 8.07 | 44.67 ± 6.88 | 0.160 |
| Blood loss volume (ml) | 107.00 ± 18.01 | 103.83 ± 12.26 | 0.637 |