Peter Endre Eltes1, Laszlo Kiss2, Marton Bartos3, Zoltan Magor Gyorgy4, Tibor Csakany4, Ferenc Bereczki2, Vivien Lesko5, Maria Puhl4, Peter Pal Varga4, Aron Lazary4. 1. In Silico Biomechanics Laboratory, National Center for Spinal Disorders, Királyhágó u. 1-3, H-1126 Budapest, Hungary; Semmelweis University School of Ph.D. Studies, Üllői u. 26. fszt. 9, H-1085 Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: peter.eltes@bhc.hu. 2. In Silico Biomechanics Laboratory, National Center for Spinal Disorders, Királyhágó u. 1-3, H-1126 Budapest, Hungary; Semmelweis University School of Ph.D. Studies, Üllői u. 26. fszt. 9, H-1085 Budapest, Hungary. 3. DO3D Innovations Ltd, Fehervari ut 130, H-1116 Budapest, Hungary. 4. National Center for Spinal Disorders, Királyhágó u. 1-3, H-1126 Budapest, Hungary. 5. In Silico Biomechanics Laboratory, National Center for Spinal Disorders, Királyhágó u. 1-3, H-1126 Budapest, Hungary.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to develop a workflow to establish geometrical quality criteria for 3D printed anatomical models as a guidance for selecting the most suitable 3D printing technologies available in a clinical environment. METHODS: We defined the 3D geometry of a 25-year-old male patient's L4 vertebra and the geometry was then printed using two technologies, which differ in printing resolution and affordability: Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) and Digital Light Processing (DLP). In order to measure geometrical accuracy, the 3D scans of two physical models were compared to the virtual input model. To compare surface qualities of these printing technologies we determined surface roughness for two regions of interest. Finally, we present our experience in the clinical application of a physical model in a congenital deformity case. RESULTS: The analysis of the distribution of the modified Hausdorff distance values along the vertebral surface meshes (99% of values <1 mm) of the 3D printed models provides evidence for high printing accuracy in both printing techniques. Our results demonstrate that the surface qualities, measured by roughness are adequate (~99% of values <0.1 mm) for both physical models. Finally, we implemented the FDM physical model for surgical planning. CONCLUSION: We present a workflow capable of determining the quality of 3D printed models and the application of a high quality and affordable 3D printed spine physical model in the pre operative planning. As a result of the visual guidance provided by the physical model, we were able to define the optimal trajectory of the screw insertion during surgery.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to develop a workflow to establish geometrical quality criteria for 3D printed anatomical models as a guidance for selecting the most suitable 3D printing technologies available in a clinical environment. METHODS: We defined the 3D geometry of a 25-year-old male patient's L4 vertebra and the geometry was then printed using two technologies, which differ in printing resolution and affordability: Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) and Digital Light Processing (DLP). In order to measure geometrical accuracy, the 3D scans of two physical models were compared to the virtual input model. To compare surface qualities of these printing technologies we determined surface roughness for two regions of interest. Finally, we present our experience in the clinical application of a physical model in a congenital deformity case. RESULTS: The analysis of the distribution of the modified Hausdorff distance values along the vertebral surface meshes (99% of values <1 mm) of the 3D printed models provides evidence for high printing accuracy in both printing techniques. Our results demonstrate that the surface qualities, measured by roughness are adequate (~99% of values <0.1 mm) for both physical models. Finally, we implemented the FDM physical model for surgical planning. CONCLUSION: We present a workflow capable of determining the quality of 3D printed models and the application of a high quality and affordable 3D printed spine physical model in the pre operative planning. As a result of the visual guidance provided by the physical model, we were able to define the optimal trajectory of the screw insertion during surgery.
Authors: Prashanth Ravi; Leonid L Chepelev; Gabrielle V Stichweh; Benjamin S Jones; Frank J Rybicki Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 4.903
Authors: Peter Endre Eltes; Marton Bartos; Benjamin Hajnal; Agoston Jakab Pokorni; Laszlo Kiss; Damien Lacroix; Peter Pal Varga; Aron Lazary Journal: Front Surg Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: Peter Endre Eltes; Mate Turbucz; Jennifer Fayad; Ferenc Bereczki; György Szőke; Tamás Terebessy; Damien Lacroix; Peter Pal Varga; Aron Lazary Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-01-05