| Literature DB >> 31639044 |
Zhimin Shen1, Hong Wang1, Yiqiang Duan1, Jian Wang2, Fengyan Wang1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To analyze the application of 3D printed osteotomy guide plate-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for valgus knee deformity.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printed osteotomy guide plate-assisted total knee arthroplasty; Clinical operation; Valgus knee deformity
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31639044 PMCID: PMC6802333 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1349-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Comparison of general data between the two groups of patients
| Item | Classification | Combined treatment group ( | Treatment group ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 2 (20.0) | 1 (10.0) | 2.71 | > 0.05 |
| Female | 8 (80.0) | 9 (90.0) | |||
| Age (year) | 60.3 ± 10.1 (59–71) | 61.4 ± 10.2 (60–71) | 1.886 | > 0.05 | |
| Primary diseases | Osteoarthritis | 6 (60.0) | 5 (50.0) | 1.32 | > 0.05 |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 4 (40.0) | 5 (50.0) | |||
| Keblish grading | Mild | 5 (50.0) | 4 (40.0) | 2.77 | > 0.05 |
| Moderate | 4 (40.0) | 4 (40.0) | |||
| Severe | 1 (10.0) | 2 (20.0) |
Data were presented as mean ± SD, n (percentage) or range. n number of cases
Main instruments
| Type of instrument | Conditions of use, materials, and characteristics | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Mimics 10.0 | For processing images and creating 3D models. Can be used to import DICOM or raw image data, export 3D models for analysis, design or 3D printing, virtually plan a surgical procedure, create 3D models, and perform anatomical analysis. Uses 2D cross-sectional images such as from CT to construct 3D models, which can then be directly linked to RP, CAD, and surgical simulation. | Materialise, Leuven, Belgium |
| Creator Pro 3D printer | For creating 3D models. Equipped with versatile dual extruder, solid steel frame construction, and has a stable vertical movement. | FlashForge, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China |
| 64-row 128-slice volume CT (VCT) | For image acquisition. The scanning range includes the target knee joint. Scanning parameters: collimator 128 × 0.5 mm; tube voltage 120 kV, the tube current was automatically adjusted according to the patient’s body thickness; rotation time 0.5 s/r; layer thickness 3 mm, layer spacing 3 mm, reconstruction with soft tissue algorithm and bone algorithm, FOV = 512 × 512. | SOMATOM Definition AS, Siemens AG, Erlangen, Germany |
| Knee replacement prosthesis and surgical instruments | The knee replacement prosthesis included the femoral and tibial components. | DePuy Synthes, Raynham, MA, USA |
| CAD software (2012 version) | For modeling, measuring the digital model, and simulating surgery. | Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA |
Fig. 1A Input data into Mimics software imaging. B Formation of 3D printed knee joint image in Mimics software. C Demonstration of 3D knee joint generated via Mimics software. Knee joint image generated D-1 anterior-posterior view and D-2 posterior view
Fig. 2A 3D printing model. Preoperative anterior-posterior view (B-1) and lateral view (B-2). Postoperative anterior-posterior view (C-1) and lateral view (C-2). 1-year postoperative anterior-posterior view (D-1) and lateral view (D-2)
Comparison of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative MFTA between the two groups
| Group |
| Operation time (min) | Intraoperative blood loss (ml) | Postoperative MFTA (°) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combined treatment group | 10 | 81.0 ± 10.0* | 246.4 ± 43.3* | 4.1 ± 0.1* |
| Treatment group | 10 | 87.0 ± 10.2 | 293.0 ± 40.1 | 5.6 ± 0.7 |
|
| 3.182 | 4.303 | 2.776 | |
|
| < 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 |
Data were presented as mean ± SD. n number of cases
*P < 0.05, combined treatment group vs treatment group
Comparison of KSS scores in the two groups before or after treatment
| Group |
| Time | Clinical score | Functional score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combined treatment group | 10 | Pretreatment | 23.2 ± 3.1 | 29.0 ± 4.4 |
| Posttreatment | 91.5 ± 10.1#* | 90.3 ± 10.8#* | ||
| Treatment group | 10 | Pretreatment | 23.0 ± 5.1 | 27.3 ± 4.1 |
| Posttreatment | 77.3 ± 10.3# | 77.0 ± 10.6# |
Data were presented as mean ± SD. n number of cases
#P < 0.05, posttreatment vs pretreatment
*P < 0.05, combined treatment group vs treatment group