| Literature DB >> 31775805 |
Jie Wang1,2, Li Min1,2, Minxun Lu1,2, Yuqi Zhang1,2, Yitian Wang1,2, Yi Luo1,2, Yong Zhou1,2, Hong Duan1,2, Chongqi Tu3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study is to describe the detailed design and surgical techniques of three-dimensional (3D)-printed custom-made endoprosthesis for hemipelvic tumorous bone defect.Entities:
Keywords: 3D-printed; Design solution; Endoprosthesis; Hemipelvic reconstruction; Surgical technique
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31775805 PMCID: PMC6882053 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1455-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
The demographics of the 13 patients treated with 3D-printed custom-made hemipelvic endoprosthesis
| Case | Age | Gender | Resection classificationa | Diagnosis | Enneking staging | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 46 | F | P1+P2+P3 | Parosteal osteosarcoma | III | 29.0 |
| 2 | 37 | F | P1+P2+P3 | Chondrosarcoma | IIB | 28.0 |
| 3 | 48 | M | P1+P2+P3 | Chondrosarcoma | IIB | 27.0 |
| 4 | 65 | F | P1+P2+P3 | Fibrosarcoma | IIB | 23.0 |
| 5 | 31 | F | P1+P2+P3 | Ewing’s sarcoma | III | 27.0 |
| 6 | 61 | M | P1+P2 | Solitary plasmacytoma | IIB | 26.0 |
| 7 | 40 | M | P1+P2 | Chondrosarcoma | IIB | 25.0 |
| 8 | 40 | M | P1+P2+P3 | Chondrosarcoma | IIB | 25.0 |
| 9 | 46 | F | P1+P2 | Chondrosarcoma | IIB | 24.0 |
| 10 | 66 | M | P1+P2+P3 | Fibrosarcoma | IIB | 22.0 |
| 11 | 53 | F | P1+P2+P3 | Osteosarcoma | III | 26.0 |
| 12 | 35 | M | P1+P2+P3 | Angiosarcoma | IIB | 24.0 |
| 13 | 65 | F | P1+P2+P3 | Chondrosarcoma | IIB | 23.0 |
| Mean | 48.7 | - | - | - | - | 25.3 |
aAccording to Enneking and Dunham [16]
Detailed information of measured data
| Case | Size of | Size of | Size of | Size of | Anatomical | Tumor | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A(mm2) | L(mm) | W(mm) | A(mm2) | L(mm) | W(mm) | A(mm2) | L(mm) | W(mm) | A(mm2) | L(mm) | W(mm) | An (°) | I (°) | (cm3) | |
| 1 | 334.9 | 22.3 | 20.2 | 118.2 | 15.1 | 9.3 | 107.8 | 13.8 | 10.0 | 310.1 | 41.1 | 9.6 | 21.0 | 44.5 | 12×18×13 |
| 2 | 222.2 | 19.5 | 15.8 | 102.6 | 13.9 | 8.9 | 40.4 | 8.6 | 6.2 | 146.2 | 24.6 | 7.6 | 27.2 | 44.4 | 11×16×10 |
| 3 | 335.1 | 22.4 | 19.7 | 121.7 | 15.1 | 11.4 | 61.9 | 10.4 | 7.0 | 333.2 | 34.4 | 12.4 | 18.9 | 38.4 | 10×15×14 |
| 4 | 330.8 | 24.5 | 16.3 | 142.1 | 16.5 | 12.1 | 47.7 | 9.2 | 6.9 | 105.9 | 22.5 | 5.7 | 20.0 | 41.3 | 7×12×12 |
| 5 | 286.8 | 22.7 | 16.5 | 138.1 | 15.7 | 11.7 | 76.2 | 13.0 | 7.0 | 118.0 | 19.9 | 8.2 | 23.1 | 42.4 | 14×16×13 |
| 6 | 316.0 | 22.1 | 18.1 | 107.1 | 15.5 | 7.8 | 66.9 | 11.0 | 7.8 | - | - | - | 18.6 | 43.2 | 5×6×4 |
| 7 | 400.0 | 27.0 | 19.4 | 163.6 | 17.3 | 12.0 | 87.3 | 12.0 | 9.3 | 103.8 | 14.2 | 9.3 | 18.8 | 45.8 | 7×11×7 |
| 8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 86.0 | 12.5 | 8.1 | 172.1 | 19.5 | 10.9 | 18.3 | 40.1 | 4×7×4 |
| 9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 74.1 | 12.1 | 8.4 | - | - | - | 21.5 | 38.8 | 6×6×4 |
| 10 | 344.6 | 22.1 | 21.0 | 130.6 | 15.7 | 10.0 | 126.2 | 16.3 | 9.9 | 281.4 | 38.0 | 7.7 | 18.9 | 41.2 | 7×12×9 |
| 11 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 77.0 | 11.5 | 8.5 | 217.1 | 30.2 | 9.2 | 21.8 | 39.9 | 5×7×8 |
| 12 | 383.0 | 25.5 | 19.3 | 147.6 | 16.6 | 10.8 | 89.5 | 13.8 | 8.3 | - | - | - | 15.0 | 40.5 | 5×6×6 |
| 13 | 316.0 | 23.3 | 17.5 | 145.4 | 15.7 | 11.7 | 96.2 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 217.5 | 29.6 | 7.6 | 19.3 | 41.6 | 7×10×7 |
| Mean | 327.9 | 23.1 | 18.4 | 131.7 | 15.7 | 10.6 | 79.8 | 12.0 | 8.3 | 200.5 | 27.4 | 8.8 | 20.2 | 41.7 | 7.7×10.9×8.5 |
S1, first sacral; S2, second sacral; NPSPMC, the narrowest part of superior pubic medullary cavity; RSSPMC, the resected surface of superior pubic medullary cavity; A, area; L, length; W, width; AO, acetabular orientation; An, anteversion; I, inclination
Fig. 1Pelvic plain radiography in a patient with an osteosarcoma (after biopsy) involving the anterior column of left acetabulum, ischium, pubis, and ilium
Fig. 2Rebuilding pelvis (white) and tumor model (red) with CT and MRI, and simulating en-bloc resection. The resected specimen (purple) and osteotomy plain (green) were exhibited
Fig. 3Length (L) and width (W) measurement at pubic ramus, two cross-section surfaces might be measured including the resected surface and the narrowest part
Fig. 4The endoprosthesis (orange) was composed of solid structure and porous structure, and matched bone defect. “Arc-like” supporting structure (cyan) distributed along arcuate line. Six radial screws fixed the endoprosthesis to the residual ilium, and two screws fixed the endoprosthesis to contralateral pubis
Fig. 5Anterior view of the endoprosthesis fabricated by electron beam melting technique. The porosity was 70% and pore size was 600 μm
Fig. 6Posterior view of the endoprosthesis fabricated by electron beam melting technique. The porosity was 70% and pore size was 600 μm
Fig. 7Resection with the aid of osteotomy guide. The osteotomy guide hooked the greater sciatic notch and anterior inferior iliac spine, then stabilized by three 1.8 mm-diameter Kirschner's wires
Fig. 8The perfect match was achieved, and residual iliac bone was drilled to improve local circulation
Detailed data of endoprosthesis design
| Case | Sacroiliac joint | Pubic ramus | Ischium | Designed | VPPS | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| involvement | RS | RC | RS | RC | A (°) | I (°) | (ml) | (ml) | (%) | |||
| 1 | N | Total | Stem | Total | N | 20 | 43 | 732.8 | 266.1 | 394.5 | 73.7 | |
| 2 | Y | Total | Stem | Total | N | 23 | 43 | 543.8 | 137.8 | 289.5 | 58.2 | |
| 3 | Y | Total | Stem | Total | N | 23 | 43 | 709.7 | 163.3 | 377.0 | 53.0 | |
| 4 | Y | Partial | Cap-like structure | Total | N | 24 | 42 | 700.6 | 212.8 | 374.9 | 66.7 | |
| 5 | Y | Partial | Stem | Partial | Y | 25 | 41 | 510.6 | 190.2 | 275.1 | 74.6 | |
| 6 | Y | N | N | N | N | 25 | 40 | 186.7 | 96.7 | 102.1 | 84.4 | |
| 7 | Y | Partial | Stem | Partial | Y | 23 | 42 | 697.2 | 164.2 | 370.5 | 54.3 | |
| 8 | N | Partial | Cap-like structure | Partial | Y | 23 | 45 | 494.8 | 128.4 | 263.6 | 59.4 | |
| 9 | N | N | N | N | N | 24 | 42 | 202.9 | 75.6 | 109.4 | 74.6 | |
| 10 | Y | Partial | Stem | Partial | Y | 24 | 40 | 474.2 | 204.8 | 189.9 | 79.4 | |
| 11 | N | Total | Stem | Total | N | 20 | 45 | 412.3 | 98.7 | 219.2 | 55.2 | |
| 12 | Y | N | N | N | N | 25 | 40 | 203.2 | 112.4 | 111.5 | 86.0 | |
| 13 | Y | Partial | Stem | Partial | Y | 22 | 42 | 475.7 | 175.7 | 256.2 | 74.3 | |
| Mean | - | - | - | - | - | - | 23.2 | 42.4 | 488.0 | 155.9 | 256.4 | 68.8 |
RS, resection; RC, reconstruction; Y, yes; N, no; AO, acetabular orientation; A, anteversion; I, inclination; Vr, volume of resect specimen; Ve, volume of endoprosthesis; We, weight of endoprosthesis; VPPS, volume proportion of porous structure.
Detailed data intra- and postoperatively
| Case | S1 | S2 | Iliac screw no. (I/D) | Pubic screw no. (I/D) | Ischial screw no. (I/D) | Intraoperative | Postoperative AO | MSTS score | ROM of hip joint | Complications | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time (min) | Blood loss(ml) | A (°) | I (°) | Pain | Function | Emotional acceptance | Supports | Walking ability | Gait | Total | (°) | |||||||
| 1 | 3/4 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 420 | 8200 | 19.5 | 41.4 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 15 (50.0%) | 100.0 | DWH |
| 2 | 4/4 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 260 | 2500 | 25.8 | 44.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 25 (83.3%) | 130.0 | - |
| 3 | 5/5 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 230 | 4200 | 20.0 | 40.7 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 23 (76.7%) | 120.0 | - |
| 4 | 5/5 | 2/2 | 0/0 | 2/2 | 0/0 | 255 | 2100 | 27.7 | 40.9 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 17 (56.7%) | 105.0 | DWH |
| 5 | 4/5 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 1/1 | 1/2 | 390 | 5600 | 22.9 | 40.2 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 19 (63.3%) | 110.0 | - |
| 6 | 3/4 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 1/1 | 1/2 | 220 | 900 | 24.0 | 44.6 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 21 (70.0%) | 130.0 | - |
| 7 | 3/5 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 0/1 | 1/2 | 270 | 2600 | 24.5 | 45.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 26 (86.7%) | 130.0 | - |
| 8 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 6/6 | 1/1 | 1/2 | 180 | 2300 | 22.8 | 45.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 27 (90.0%) | 125.0 | - |
| 9 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 3/5 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 170 | 1700 | 23.5 | 43.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 27 (90.0%) | 125.0 | - |
| 10 | 4/5 | 2/2 | 0/0 | 1/1 | 1/2 | 390 | 5100 | 18.2 | 37.3 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 16 (53.3%) | 110.0 | - |
| 11 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 5/6 | 2/2 | 0/0 | 210 | 1900 | 25.0 | 48.1 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 27 (90.0%) | 130.0 | - |
| 12 | 4/5 | 1/1 | 1/2 | 1/1 | 1/2 | 270 | 2600 | 29.8 | 42.3 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 24 (80.0%) | 125.0 | - |
| 13 | 4/5 | 1/2 | 0/0 | 1/1 | 2/2 | 540 | 6300 | 28.4 | 44.4 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 20 (66.7%) | 110.0 | - |
| Mean | - | - | - | - | - | 292.7 | 3538.5 | 24.0 | 42.9 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 22.1(73.6%) | 119.2 | - |
I/D, inserted/designed; AO, acetabular orientation; A, anteversion; I, inclination; MSTS, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, according to Enneking et.al [19]; ROM, range of motion; DWH, delayed wound healing
Comparison among anatomical, designed, and postoperative acetabular orientation
| Orientation | Angles measured | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Anteversion | Anatomical | Designed | |
| 20.2° ± 2.9° | 23.2° ± 1.7° | 0.013 | |
| Designed | Postoperative | ||
| 23.2° ± 1.7° | 24° ± 3.5° | 0.380 | |
| Inclination | Anatomical | Designed | |
| 41.8° ± 2.3° | 42.4° ± 1.7° | 0.404 | |
| Designed | Postoperative | ||
| 42.4° ± 1.7° | 42.9° ± 2.8° | 0.333 | |
Fig. 9Two months after the operation, plain radiograph showed well alignment of endoprosthesis. Five screws were inserted to the ilium, and two screws were inserted to the contralateral pubis
Fig. 10Three months after the operation, tomosynthesis-Shimadzu metal artifact reduction technology (T-SMART) showed preliminary osseointegration