| Literature DB >> 32355776 |
Feng Wei1, Zhehuang Li1, Zhongjun Liu1, Xiaoguang Liu1, Liang Jiang1, Miao Yu1, Nanfang Xu1, Fengliang Wu1, Lei Dang1, Hua Zhou1, Zihe Li1, Hong Cai1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reconstruction following resection of the primary tumors of the upper cervical spine is challenging, and conventional internal implants develop complications in this region. 3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, can produce patient-specific porous implants in a particular shape for bone defect reconstruction. This study aimed to describe the clinical outcomes of upper cervical spine reconstruction using customized 3D-printed vertebral body in 9 patients with primary tumors involving C2.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; Patient-specific implant; primary spine tumor; spinal reconstruction; total spondylectomy
Year: 2020 PMID: 32355776 PMCID: PMC7186708 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.03.32
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Figure 1Imaging studies for patient #3. The achievement of osseointegration was defined when new bone formation was observed around the bone-implant interface on X-ray (B) and CT (D) during the follow-up compared to that of immediately postoperative (A,C). The postoperative segment vertebral height was measured on the midsagittal reconstruction CT from atlas anterior tubercle to the midpoint of the adjacent lower endplate (C).
Figure 2The 3D-printed artificial vertebral body with porous metal scaffold fabricated by successive layering of melted titanium alloy powder.
The details of the 9 patients
| No. | Age/sex | Histology | Involved | Enneking stage | ASIA | ECOG | VAS | Follow-up (months) | Final status | Total operative time (min) | Estimated blood loss (mL) | Complications | Hospital duration (day) | Adjuvant therapy | Segment height (mm) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | Final follow-up | Preoperative | Final follow-up | Preoperative | Final follow-up | Immediately postoperative | At final follow-up | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 12/M | Ewing sarcoma | C2 | IIB | D | Died | 3 | 5 | 8 | Died | 15 | DOD | 541 | 1,400 | None | 33 | RT and CHT | 53.1 | 53.2 | ||
| 2 | 24/F | GCT | C2 | S3 | D | E | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 42 | NED | 395 | 300 | None | 25 | RT | 45.3 | 45.0 | ||
| 3 | 17/F | GCT | C2 | S3 | E | E | 3 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 41 | NED | 451 | 3,300 | None | 20 | RT | 50.5 | 50.1 | ||
| 4 | 47/F | Paraganglioma | C2 | IIB | E | E | 4 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 39 | NED | 356 | 1,600 | None | 14 | RT and CHT | 54.5 | 54.4 | ||
| 5 | 44/M | Hemangioendothelioma | C2–C3 | IIB | E | E | 3 | 1 | 9 | 2 | 34 | NED | 559 | 6,400 | None | 37 | RT | 52.9 | 52.6 | ||
| 6 | 18/F | GCT | C2 | S3 | E | E | 3 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 32 | NED | 366 | 750 | None | 49 | RT | 43.1 | 43.0 | ||
| 7 | 59/F | Chordoma | C2 | IB | E | E | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 27 | AWD | 456 | 1,100 | None | 20 | RT | 51.3 | 51.0 | ||
| 8 | 16/F | GCT | C2 | S3 | E | E | 4 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 15 | NED | 432 | 500 | None | 30 | RT | 48.9 | 48.4 | ||
| 9 | 46/F | Chordoma | C2–C3 | IB | E | E | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 12 | NED | 485 | 1,700 | CSF leakage, poor wound healing | 30 | RT | 66.8 | 66.0 | ||
GCT, giant cell tumor; DOD, died of the disease; NED, no evidence of disease; AWD, alive with disease; RT, radiation therapy; CHT, chemotherapy; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid.
Figure 3Imaging studies for patient #3. The achievement of osseointegration was defined when new bone formation was observed around the bone-implant interface on X-ray (B) and CT (D) during the follow-up compared to that of immediately postoperative (A,C). The postoperative segment vertebral height was measured on the midsagittal reconstruction CT from atlas anterior tubercle to the midpoint of the adjacent lower endplate (C).
Figure 4Imaging studies for patient #6 showing the process of fusion. Compared to the immediate postoperative X-ray (A) and CT (D), regenerated osseous tissue can be seen to gradually grew along the implant 12 months (B,E) and 24 months (C,F) after the surgery (arrow).